RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND HENRY CUELLAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANTS v. ALICIA DEL RIO, ET AL., APPELLEES; ALICIA DEL RIO, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND HENRY CUELLAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEES
NO. 01-0988 - consolidated with - NO. 01-1002
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
67 S.W.3d 85; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 98; 45 Tex. Sup. J. 52
October 18, 2001, Argued
Appellee individuals in the 353rd District Court, Travis County (Texas), challenged the constitutionality of the existing state congressional districts and asked the court to adopt a new redistricting plan. The trial court enjoined the parties from using the existing districts and adopted a new redistricting plan. Appellant state officials and others appealed.
The Texas Attorney General proposed a redistricting plan as the base plan for federal redistricting. The trial court refused to accept the plan, used a state legislative council for expert assistance in developing a plan, and required the council to keep the communications between the trial court and the council confidential. The trial court accepted for review comments and suggestions from the parties. The trial court then modified its plan, based on a recommendation of another party, and ordered its plan into enactment without giving the parties the opportunity to review or comment on the plan. On appeal, the supreme court found the attorney general, under the separation-of-powers doctrine, did not have the authority to require the trial court to adopt his redistricting plan and render judgment that his plan was the baseline state court plan for the redistricting proceedings. Additionally, the trial court violated the parties' due process rights when it rendered a judgment based on the new plans not in evidence at trial without giving the parties an opportunity for a meaningful hearing.
The judgment was vacated and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.