The issue has been before the Court twice already:
The dispute is making its third trip to the Supreme Court. In January 2004 the court refused to block the new map temporarily. In October 2004 the justices told a lower court to reconsider its decision upholding the districts in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling on partisan gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.
In that case, a 5-4 majority rejected arguments that the Republican-drawn districts were so partisan that they violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. One member of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy, nonetheless left the door open to similar challenges in the future if courts could come up with a ``workable standard.''
In the Texas cases, Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, writing for the three-judge panel, said the challengers had failed to propose a standard that ``can sort plans as `fair or unfair' by something other than a judge's vision of how the judiciary ought to work.'' Under federal law, challenges to voting districts first go to a three-judge panel, then to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from that decision. There is some posibility that given the changed membership of the Court, the issue could receive a different treatment this time:
However, now the court will have a chance to revisit that issue and the outcome could change because the court's membership is changing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and Chief Justice John Roberts has been on the bench just a few months.
"It's all the more intriguing given the likelihood that Justice O'Connor won't be sitting in the case," said Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School who was surprised the court agreed to hear the case.
I think it's likely the court has something different to say this time, or they wouldn't agree to hear it. Though I seriously doubt that the redistricting plan will be completely lambasted, it's possible the Court will propose some type of standard for how and when redistricting like this can be done. As the AP article states, the case will be heard sometime in April, and a decision likely issued in June. We'll wait and see.
2 comments:
Slightly ironic, I think, that this is coming up at the same time as DeLay has been indicted. Is there any reason to think that the one will impact the other?
In any case, what will be the consequences if this redistricting is found to violate federal law? Do we just go back to the old map? Who keeps their seat or loses it, and do we have to have a round of special elections for this?
The irony is rich indeed.
I think it's likely that the recent news on the DOJ memo that was overruled will have some bearing on how the Supreme Court decides the case. Not much...but some. Obviously the Supremes don't issue opinions based on what staff lawyers say, but that they were unanimously against the plan means something, and their arguments will probably be used by the side arguing against the plan...which the Supremes may then incorporate into their decision depending on how they rule on it.
I think if they find that there's anything wrong with the plan, it'll require new redistricting for the mid-term elections in November. If the decisions is released in June though, that only leaves 3 months to put together some plan that'll survive court scrutiny, and that's not much time.
Post a Comment