UPDATE 4: Why did the Court list the case six times before deciding to hear it? After all, if there were 4 Justices to hear the case, that would have been evident before. I see three possibilities:

1. Justice Kennedy has finally decided what he wants to do in these cases, or perhaps he was swayed by an argument of the plaintiffs (such as that mid-decade redistricting for partisan gain is unconstitutional, no matter what else is).

2. Justice Roberts wants to weigh in on these cases.

3. One of the Vieth dissenters was preparing a summary affirmance, and one of the Justices in the majority did not like what was there. Shades of the dispute in Larios. This reminds me of what happend in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, recounted in my book, The Supreme Court and Election Law. By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court was prepared to uphold the constitutionality of the poll tax. Justice Goldberg prepared a dissent from the Supreme Court's summary affirmance. Justice Black, who was in the majority in upholding the poll tax, did not like what was in the dissent and called for a full hearing, apparently with the expectation that the Court would issue an opinion rejecting the view of the dissenters. Justice Black got burned. Three Justices changed their votes over the summer, and the opinion released after argument was 6-3 striking down the poll tax, with Justice Black in dissent.

Lyle Denniston's post now sets out the questions presented in the petitions. Here are some links to early stories on the decision to hear the Texas case: AP; Washington Post; Bloomberg; Reuters. The Reuters story erroneously reports that the three-judge court was reviewing the DOJ's preclearance decision and that the Supreme Court will now be ruling on that question.

UPDATE 3: The timing. Apparently the Court has expedited the briefing schedule (opening brief 1/10; state's brief 2/1; reply 2/22) and set argument for March 1. It is significant that the Court set the case for March 1, given that the Court was filling its April calendar and already has cases set for hearing that day. Presumably the Court wants to expedite things in anticipation of the 2006 congressional elections. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like the Texas primary is March 7. So what good would expediting do? Would the Court order a new primary?

Some history is instructive here, copied from Lowenstein and Hasen, Election Law--3d 3d (2004) at page 306:

The District Court on the remand of Bush [v Vera from the Supreme Court] redrew thirteen congressional districts and declared void the primaries that had already been held. See Vera v. Bush, 933 F.Supp. 1341 (S.D.Tex. 1996). New runoff primaries were ordered to be held in those districts at the same time as the general election in November. In a runoff primary, candidates of all parties run against each other. If one candidate wins a majority, he or she is elected. If no one wins a majority, a runoff election is held between the top two vote-getters.

Because a primary was mixed with the Texas general election by reason of the District Court's order, the "straight-ticket lever" that Texas includes in its voting procedures could not apply to the House elections in the thirteen districts, which undoubtedly caused some voters unknowingly to fail to vote in the House races. In the three districts in which no one won a majority in the November primary, a run-off election had to be held in December. This could easily have affected the results in a close election, since turnout in a December run-off figured to be far lower than in the November presidential election.

-- 
Rick Hasen 
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org
  

-- 
Rick Hasen 
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org