Supreme Court Hears Texas Redistricting Case

The Supreme Court on Jan. 9 began considering a question about Texas and its new political maps that could affect 16 mostly Southern states.
Supreme Court Hears Texas Redistricting Case
Mary Silver
1/11/2012
Updated:
1/11/2012

The Supreme Court on Jan. 9 began considering a question about Texas and its new political maps that could affect 16 mostly Southern states. Those 16 states are required by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to get federal approval to change any voting procedures, such as legislative districts or voter ID requirements.

The 2010 census found that Texas gained more than 4 million mostly African-American and Latino people since the last census, and therefore must alter its political maps. Texas will gain four House seats for a total of 36 representatives, because of its population growth.

The Republican Texas legislature drew legislative maps to help Republicans get elected. African-American and Latino groups and the state Democratic Party accused the legislature of violating the Voting Rights Act requirement that the voting strength of minorities must not be diluted. A coalition of minorities drew their own maps and sued to have them used for the 2012 elections.

Until Texas gets federal approval for some version of its legislative district maps, no one can vote in primaries or in any other contest.

The question the Supreme Court will decide is whether lower court judges in Texas overstepped when they drew their own maps that did not take the state legislature’s maps as a starting point. “It is judicial activism at its worst for judges to draw redistricting maps of their own choosing despite no finding of wrongdoing by the State of Texas, said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

“The court-drawn maps, which give no deference to Texas’s duly-enacted legislative plans, cannot be allowed to stand,” Abbott said. Texas asked for help from higher court judges in Washington, but they too would not authorize the state to use the maps the state legislature devised.

The larger question, which could affect the 16 states under supervision, is whether it is still appropriate for 16 states to be under federal supervision more than 40 years after the rampant disenfranchisement of minorities during the Jim Crow era. In 2009, members of the Supreme Court expressed doubt about that.

Georgia sued on the basis that the continued supervision was unconstitutional, but the case was dismissed after the Department of Justice approved the Georgia maps. Georgia expects a suit challenging its maps, which were also drawn by a Republican legislature.

The justices did not indicate any agreement. It may take months before the matter is settled.

Mary Silver writes columns, grows herbs, hikes, and admires the sky. She likes critters, and thinks the best part of being a journalist is learning new stuff all the time. She has a Masters from Emory University, serves on the board of the Georgia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and belongs to the Association of Health Care Journalists.
Related Topics