Supreme Court Approves Texas Redistricting
By Gina Holland
Associated Press Writer
Monday, June 17, 2002; 10:32 AM
WASHINGTON ö The Supreme Court rejected arguments Monday that Texas
redistricting hurt Hispanics, good news for Republicans who hope to pick
up congressional seats in the state.
The justices, without hearing arguments, affirmed congressional and
state legislative boundaries that favor Republicans.
Hispanic groups unsuccessfully argued that while minorities accounted
for the most growth in Texas in the 1990s, district lines will not
dramatically change their chances of winning offices.
The once-a-decade redistricting had baffled the state Legislature, which
passed the task on to a GOP-dominated redistricting board. The board's
proposals were challenged in federal court.
A three-judge panel revised the state House districts and redrew a
congressional map. It did not change the state Senate boundaries.
Groups like the Mexican American Legislative Caucus sued, arguing that
Hispanics were hurt by the redistricting even though the Hispanic
population in Texas increased by 2.3 million between 1990 and 2000,
accounting for 60 percent of the state's growth.
They claimed that neighborhoods with large Hispanic populations were
broken into separate districts to ensure that white Republicans could
win the seats. The plans "smack strongly of bad faith and arbitrariness
and certainly belie any notion of good faith effort at population
equality," the court was told in filings.
Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, a member of the state's
redistricting board, countered that the Supreme Court should not "equate
the mere existence of political considerations in the districting
process with purposeful or invidious discrimination"
"Such an approach would plunge the court in the 'political thicket,'
compelling the type of judicial second-guessing of state legislatures
that the court has steadfastly rejected," Cornyn told justices in a
filing.
The Texas cases are among the first to come before the Supreme Court
over boundary drawing done with 2000 census information. The
Constitution requires new boundaries to reflect population changes, and
legal fights are pending in multiple states.
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a dispute
between Democrats and Republicans over a Mississippi congressional plan
drawn by a federal panel.
The Texas case is not a disagreement between political parties, but a
fight between advocates for Hispanics and the state.
Part of the dispute involves the two new congressional seats Texas is
getting because of population growth. Texas previously had 30 districts,
held by 17 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Under the court-drawn plan, the
two new seats favor Republican candidates.
The Supreme Court, under conservative Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist, has not been sympathetic to requests for special line-drawing
consideration for minorities.
In 1995, the court ruled that election districts drawn mainly to boost
black voters' political clout are unlawful. The following year, justices
struck down a Texas congressional plan, ruling that three predominantly
minority districts were unconstitutional because race was the principal
consideration in their configuration.
Lawyers for challengers in the latest case argue that districts were not
done with traditional line-drawing methods. They wanted the court to
look at large population differences in side-by-side districts and
districts that split neighborhood and cities.
The cases are: Balderas v. Texas, 01-1196; Balderas v. Texas 01-1126;
Mexican American Legislative Caucus-Texas House v. Texas, 01-1225; Amps
v. Texas, 01-1242; and Mayfield v. Texas 01453.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63713-2002Jun17.html
-------------------------------------------------
Christopher B. Seaman
Student, University of Pennsylvania Law School
3400 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
cseaman@law.upenn.edu