These
Justices joined Justice Kennedy's II-D, and did not join Justice
Breyer's separate opinion which would find that the Texas plan is an
unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. At the end of Justice Kennedy's
II-D is the following statement:
"In sum, we disagree with appellants' view that a legislature's
decision to override a valid, court drawn plan mid-decade is
sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for
identifying unconstitutional political gerrymanders. We conclude
that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of
political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on
which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge." (slip op.
16, emphasis added)
I initially read the decision of Justices Souter and Ginsburg to sign
II-D as simply a rejection of the mid-decade redistricting point. But
some have argued to me that the sentence I've quoted show that they
also agree the Texas plan was not a partisan gerrymander (presumably
under the standards Justice Souter or other dissenters announced in Vieth).
Any thoughts?
Rick
--
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