Justices mull challenge to Texas redistricting - SUPREME COURT: Opponents of the controversial 2003 redistricting plan seem to get little sympathy.

Paper: Duluth News-Tribune (MN)

Date: March 2, 2006

The Supreme Court Wednesday heard oral arguments on Texas's controversial 2003 redistricting plan, putting a spotlight on constitutional issues that have sometimes been overshadowed by the political drama surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's role in the case.

Conceived as part of DeLay's strategy to give the Texas GOP extra seats in the House and thus cement Republican control, the plan was enacted over the dramatic protests of Texas Democratic lawmakers who at one point fled the state to avoid voting on it. The state indictment that forced DeLay to quit as majority leader alleges illegalities in his fundraising for the redistricting effort.

But none of that was before the court Wednesday -- and after two hours of a special extended oral argument, they seemed likely to let all or most of DeLay's handiwork stand.

Opponents argue that the unusual mid-decade redistricting violated the Constitution because it was done with no purpose other than maximizing one party's advantage over another. But the justices reacted coolly to that claim, which, if accepted by the court, would break new ground in election law.

Perhaps the worst sign for the opponents came in hostile questioning by Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose past opinions on election-law issues suggest that he might be the swing voter in the case. Kennedy said it would be "very dangerous" for the court to bar mid-decade redistricting that benefits one party, because then there would be no way to correct a previous legislature that "overreached" in favor of another party.

The Texas plan is also under attack from black and Hispanic voters who say that it weakened their political power in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Career officials at the Justice Department had advanced similar arguments, but were overruled at more senior levels and the Bush administration sided with Texas at the Supreme Court.

Several justices raised concerns about the geographical shape and ethnic composition of three disputed districts, but no consensus view on the Voting Rights Act issues emerged.

After Republicans took over both Houses of the legislature in 2002, DeLay and his allies launched the redistricting bid, arguing that the state's delegation in Washington should reflect its majority GOP voting population. Seeking to block the plan by depriving the legislature of a quorum, Democratic legislators fled the state, but the plan eventually was adopted. Today, the GOP has a 21-11 advantage in the House delegation.

Author: CHARLES LANE, WASHINGTON POST

Page: natl