Texas map flap heading to high court
Decision could have long-term repercussions for state and nation
AUSTIN — Texas’ disputed U.S. and state House maps will come under an election-year review by the U.S. Supreme Court in a nationally-followed case that alleges racial discrimination by the state Legislature.
The justices agreed Friday to review a lower-court ruling that took issue with a pair of U.S. House districts and several state House districts.
The Republican-drawn maps — hotly disputed by Democrats — have muddled through the courts for three election cycles amid challenges that several of the districts were drawn in a way that diluted voting power for Latino and African-American voters.
“They didn’t just cheat to get an edge in a silly game, they silenced the voices minorities at the ballot box,” said Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa, who said the maps are an example of Republicans
“stacking the deck” against people of color.
Legal fights over redistricting have been common for decades in Texas and many other states, regardless of which party is in power. Democrats reigned in Texas for more than a century after the Civil War and Republicans challenged them. Republicans took over just more than 20 years ago in Texas, so they control redistricting now, and the Democrats challenge their maps. The battle is important because redistricting literally is the process of drawing political boundaries, which shape the makeup of state legislatures and Congress once each decade.
In a set of cases that could reshape the way American elections are held, the Supreme Court already has agreed to look at allegations of partisan gerrymandering in the congressional redistricting maps of Democrats in Maryland and in the state redistricting maps of Republicans in Wisconsin.
Another case from North Carolina also could be headed for the high court after a panel of federal judges earlier this week struck down that state’s congressional districts as a partisan gerrymander.
After decades of dispute over redistricting and gerrymandering, the Supreme Court appears increasingly likely to clarify what’s legal when lawmakers draw up political boundaries for state and federal elected office.
“This is a big case with big repercussions for Texas and beyond that involves a bunch of hard issues in redistricting,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor from the Loyola Law School. “The state has a demonstrated history of not doing real well.”
The decision to hear the Texas case was expected among people in legal and political circles after the high court blocked two lower court rulings last fall that required the state to redraw some congressional and state House district lines deemed discriminatory against minorities.
The court agreed to review a lower-court ruling that took issue with a pair of congressional districts and several state House districts.
Stakes are high
“The stakes are as high as they’ve been in Texas since the state was purple in the 1990s and we had political competition that was natural,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. “Redistricting and gerrymandering create an unnatural advantage for one party or the other and the court’s alteration of that would have a profound effect on the politics of the state.”
Should the court rule against the state, districts in the future could be redrawn to benefit minority voters, which could result in the election of more people of color, more Democrat office holders and more contentious elections in suburban districts, he said.
Unlike the cases in North Carolina, Maryland and Wisconsin, the dispute in Texas focuses on alleged racial gerrymandering — not solely partisan advantage — in the way some federal and state voting districts were drawn.
Texas GOP leaders and the state have argued that the districts — which are being used again in this year’s legislative and congressional elections — are sound.
“We are eager for the chance to present our case before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in an emailed statement, adding the lower court’s decision to invalidate parts of the current map were “inexplicable and indefensible.”
A decision is likely before June, when the court’s current term ends. If justices chose to, they could order immediate action later this year that would force some boundaries to be redrawn, but the March 6 primaries will already be decided by then.
Some analysts say the high court would be reluctant to disrupt ongoing elections, but Democrats’ hopes have been bolstered by a similar Texas gerrymandering case in 1996 that resulted in the nullification of the primaries in the affected districts.
Republicans had appealed two lower court rulings, including the decision of a three-judge panel in San Antonio which invalidated the boundaries on a pair of congressional districts and nine House districts.
The high court in September blocked the lower court rulings, granting the state’s request not to require new maps for the 2018 election, pleasing Republicans who have defended the maps.
The districts in question are Congressional District 27 on the coastal bend and District 35 that stretches from Austin to San Antonio. The challenge also includes nine of Texas House seats in Dallas, Nueces, Bell and Tarrant counties. Republican Blake Farenthold currently holds the District 27 seat but it vacating it after this term. Democrat Lloyd Doggett now represents District 35.
But any changes to the districts under challenge also could have ripple effects in their surrounding districts if the courts require them to be redrawn.
Challenges to the maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature contend lawmakers intentionally weakened minority voting power by cramming minorities into a single district or by splitting them up across too many.
“Their racially gerrymandered maps have left Texans with districts that suppress minority voting strength and fail to accurately reflect the political views Texans regardless of race,” said Lone Star Project Director Matt Angle.
“The stakes are as high as they’ve been in Texas since the state was purple in the 1990s and we had political competition that was natural.” Brandon Rottinghaus, UH political science professor
Minority voting strength
Texas has been using temporary court-ordered maps that were drawn for the 2012 elections and approved by the Legislature in 2013. Those same maps will be used in the March 6 primary election.
Texas’ long history of challenges, pending the ruling of the court, could lead to the state falling under federal supervision when it drafts future electoral maps. Currently, no state in the nation is subject to such oversight.
“Texans deserve for their votes to count,” said Rep. Rafael Anchia, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. “We are hopeful that the court will provide justice to voters and agree that discrimination will not be tolerated in our elections.”