High court to hear arguments today on 2003 Texas remap
Decision might turn on whether voters have been disenfranchised
Paper: Dallas Morning News, The (TX)
Date: March 1, 2006
When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today about congressional districts drawn up by the Legislature in 2003, it will consider whether an inherently political process may have become too political in Texas and disenfranchised voters.
The redistricting, the product of the legislative leadership and former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was crafted after four legislative sessions. Democrats in the state House and Senate each fled Texas, stopping most activity in their respective chambers, in unsuccessful bids to halt the process.
Republicans had argued that the state's congressional delegation failed to adequately reflect the ascent of the GOP in the state and population shifts revealed in the 2000 census.
Road to the court
After the 2000 census, Texas' allotment of congressional districts increased from 30 to 32. Legislatures have the constitutional obligation to redistrict, but the 2001 Texas Legislature was split: the Senate controlled by Republicans, the House controlled by Democrats. When they failed to agree on a remap, the matter went to court.
In 2001, a three-judge federal panel helped redraw the state congressional map, preserving many old district lines. In 2002 elections, Republicans gained two new seats, but Democrats still outnumbered them, 17-15.
At the same time, the GOP gained control of both houses of the Legislature. When it convened in 2003, the Republican majority redrew the court-authorized districts. After a bitter partisan struggle, the plan was adopted in October 2003. The matter went back to court.
A series of cases were filed by Texas Democrats, black and Hispanic minorities and residents in 17 of the redrawn districts. The cases were consolidated and heard by the same federal court that drew the 2001 map.
In January 2004, the court, in a split vote, validated the Republican plan. The case was appealed but returned to the court in October 2004 after the Supreme Court ruled in a related Pennsylvania redistricting case. In June 2005, the court again approved the Republican plan, this time unanimously.
In December, the Supreme Court decided it would consider Texas' redistricting, setting the hearing date for today. The justices expedited the hearing, which normally wouldn't have been expected until late spring.
The legal context
The background is replete with anecdotal intrigue: the indictment of the Republican plan's architect, Mr. DeLay; the high-profile boycott of two legislative sessions called to deal with redistricting; rejection of the plan by voting rights specialists at the Department of Justice who were overruled by political appointees.
Still, the outcome will probably turn on two prior Supreme Court cases and the views of one justice.
In 2003, the court rejected, 5-4, a Republican governor's challenge of a map drawn by the Democratic-controlled Georgia Legislature, which spread black voters across several districts to maximize their political clout.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled - again 5-4 - that "excessive partisan gerrymandering" couldn't be defined well enough to make it possible for courts to intervene. Although he agreed with the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that some day the court would have to deal with the issue.
Texas Democrats are hoping to convince Justice Kennedy that that day has come.
E-mail apusey@dallasnews.com
THE CASE'S BASIC QUESTIONS
Can the Legislature, on its own initiative, undertake mid-decade redistricting?
Argument: Legislatures are constitutionally obliged to redistrict as necessary after each decennial census. To allow redistricting any time a legislature wishes would make representatives unaccountable to voters, cause confusion and instability in congressional districts, and invite computer-driven change solely on the basis of politics.
Response: The Republican plan is not a mid-decade redistricting because a federal court panel produced an earlier remap after lawmakers couldn't agree. The constitution authorizes the Legislature to set the districts. The courts have long ignored the extent to which a plan is politically inspired.
Did the redistricting of the 23rd District in Central Texas and the 24th District in the Dallas-Fort Worth area diminish the rights of minority voters under the Voting Rights Act?
Argument: The Voting Rights Act requires that minorities have the "opportunity" to elect representatives of their choice. The redrawing of the 23rd District deprived Hispanic voters of the opportunity to reject a Republican in favor of a Democrat. In the 24th District, influential black voter power was curtailed.
Response: Blacks in the old the 24th District represented less than a quarter of voters from the district. Their interests are too diverse from Hispanic voters for the groups to be jointly considered as a "majority minority." Rep. Henry Bonilla's low turnout - 8 percent - among Hispanic voters in the old 23rd District was a one-election aberration. And Hispanic representation was actually enhanced by the creation of the 25th District, however oddly shaped.
Did redistricting obligate the state to create an additional Hispanic district in South and West Texas?
Argument: The areas redrawn in South and West Texas contain a 58 percent majority of Hispanic voters. Therefore, the redrawn districts should have resulted in all seven of those districts becoming Hispanic dominated.
Response: The Republican map made six of the seven new districts in West Texas Hispanic-dominated. Creating a seventh would have made Hispanic strength disproportionate.
Is the bitter political history of the Republican redistricting plan evidence of an unconstitutional "partisan gerrymander" or a healthy exercise of the political process?
Argument: Republicans have never denied that their intent was to unseat Democratic incumbents in favor of Republicans. The midcensus timing and the heavy-handed rejection of the earlier, court-ordered remap reveals a raw political framework that will serve as a blueprint for abuse.
Response: The Republican map is a lawful and constitutional exercise by the Legislature to realign the state in a way that better reflects its persistent Republican majority.
Copyright 2006 The Dallas Morning News
Author: ALLEN PUSEY
Section: NEWS
Page: 15A
Copyright 2006 The Dallas Morning News
