<x-flowed>Am I correct that the Texas case is the first time that Scalia has written an opinion in a race case (i.e., the Shaw claim against District 25) where he finds a law passes strict scrutiny?  It is interesting that he finds that District 25 is necessary to further the (assumed) compelling interest of complying with Section 5 of the VRA -- once the state had decided to make District 23 a safer seat for the incumbent.  In other words, District 25 is "narrowly" tailored to prevent retrogression the state causes by moving Hispanics out of a more compact district.

Falling down a rabbit hole,
Nate

P.S. Johnson v. California -- a case dealing with prison segregation -- is the only other candidate, I think, but he joins Thomas's opinion there, which applies a lower standard given the deference ordinarily due prison officials.



JMWice@aol.com wrote:

For the most part, it's too late this year to make any redistricting changes, however slight, to impact the 2006 elections (and not counting remedial action in Texas).  From my survey of states, there are few one-party controlled states likely to revisit redistricting. I also doubt we'll see sweetheart deals in two-party control states.  It took Georgia's legislature several months earlier this year to change the 2004 plan.

We really have to wait and see what happens after the November elections and new legislative leaderships and Governors get 2007 sessions underway. There are also legitimate questions whether state legislatures should amend their own plans. There are approximately nine states with either court-drawn state legislative or congressional plans. Of those states, only New Mexico and South Carolina have one party control (I would add Maine, but Democrats already have the Senate, House, and congressional districts).

Jeff Wice