• Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012
  • Bookmark and Share
  • email
  • |
  • print
  • |
  • rss

tool name

close
tool goes here

Supreme Court says 'grounds for concerns' with Texas redistricting maps

Sign up for email newsletters now!

Sign up for email newsletters now!

Never miss a McClatchy story

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ordered a Texas panel of judges to reconsider the latest maps drawn for the state's legislative districts.

In an 11-page, unsigned decision, the court unanimously ruled that there are "grounds for concern" with how the Texas-based judges drew the redistricting maps. The decision further roils an already unsettled election, currently set for April 3.

"It is unclear whether the (lower court) followed the appropriate stand-ards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elec-tions," the high court stated.

At issue are the districts the Texas Legislature drew after the 2010 census and whether they're viable under the Voting Rights Act. The law protects the voting rights of minorities in nine Southern states with histories of discrimination.

The Supreme Court weighed in after the state of Texas asked for an emergency stay of a U.S. District San Antonio three-judge panel's imposition of an interim map for 2012. This map, in turn, was designed after the Washington judges failed to approve — or "pre-clear" — the maps as required by the Voting Rights Act.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund argues that some of those seats should be drawn as minority opportunity districts that are Democratic-leaning.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argues it is "perfectly reasonable to draw the lines" for the emerging number of Hispanic Republicans.

In its ruling Friday, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts "should take guidance" from state redistricting plans.

"That plan reflects the state’s policy judgments on where to place new districts and how to shift existing ones in response to massive population growth," the court stated.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas proposed going further, byarguing that the pre-clearance requirements themselves are unconstitutional.

Follow Michael Doyle on Twitter

ON THE WEB

Supreme Court web site

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY:

Supreme Court considers Texas redistricting case

Supreme Court to hear Texas redistricting case

Texas redistricting keeps two courts busy

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

We welcome comments. To post one, you must sign in using either your McClatchyDC login or your login for Facebook, Twitter or Disqus. Just click the appropriate box below.

Please keep your comment civil, short and to the point. Obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. If you find a comment abusive or inappropriate, please flag it for the moderator by placing your cursor on the comment, then clicking the "flag" link that appears. Thanks for your participation.

LEGAL AFFAIRS BLOG

Suits & Sentences

"Suits & Sentences" is written by Mike Doyle, who covers the Supreme Court for McClatchy's Washington Bureau. Send a story suggestion.

POLITICS & GOVERNMENT BLOG

Planet Washington

"Planet Washington" is a group blog by journalists in McClatchy's Washington Bureau. Send a story suggestion.