The Houston Chronicle reports that the three-judge court dismissed as a
matter of law the claim that the U.S. Constitution forbids mid-decade
redistricting once a valid set of post-census districts have been used in
a congressional election.
It doesn't appear from the news coverage that any of the other claims
have been ruled on, although summary judgment motions were filed on some
of those other claims last month.
There will be a hearing Tuesday to address whatever the Justice
Department does on Monday, when it must preclear (or not) the new map.
Closing arguments in the trial are also scheduled for Tuesday.
IIRC, the special extended window for candidates to file is roughly the
week of Jan. 12, so I'd imagine the panel will want to decide the case no
later than the week after New Year's Day.
Ther article highlights an exchange between two black Houston Democrats,
one of whom criticized the other for voting for the new map and for
testifying in its favor at trial. In response, the alleged turncoat
issued a press release saying: "I was representing black
people while Garnet Coleman was in rehab. He has already publicly
admitted to being mentally unstable. Therefore, any comments he makes
regarding me don't deserve a response."
And to think people were afraid this whole re-redistricting thing might
get nasty.
The article is at
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2307020
J. J. Gass
Associate Counsel, Democracy Program
212-998-6281
jj.gass@nyu.edu
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
fax 212-995-4550
www.brennancenter.org