WALTER SESSION, ET AL v. RICK PERRY, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:03-CV-354 Consolidated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

298 F. Supp. 2d 451; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1728

January 6, 2004, Filed

Following the 2000 Census, Texas gained two additional congressional seats. Because the Texas State Legislature failed to adopt a redistricting plan, a three-judge federal court drew the state's congressional districts, which governed elections in 2002. In October of 2003, following a protracted partisan battle, the Texas legislature passed a new districting plan that strongly favored the Republican Party. In December 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft pre-cleared this new district plan under the Voting Rights Act. Several groups brought suit against Texas government officials in federal court, claiming the new plan violated federal law in numeous respects, including: (1) Texas may not re-redistrict mid-decade; (2) the plan is a product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering; (3) the plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander; and (4) various districts in the plan dilute the voting strength of minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge district court rejected these claims, and upheld the redrawn plan -- clearing the way for the primary and general elections in 2004 which were held using the newly redrawn lines. Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451 (E.D. Tex. 2004). Meanwhile, plaintiffs appealed the case to the Supreme Court. In the fall of 2004, the Supreme Court vacated the three-judge court's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Vieth v. Jubelirer. See Jackson v. Perry , 125 S. Ct. 351 (2004) .

The three judge court in Texas, on remand from the Supreme Court, again concluded that the 2003 Congressional redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution.

Full Case Text