What you need to know about Texas’ battle over gerrymandering
The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN—In the latest chapter of Texas’ extremely complicated battle over voting rights and the legality of its electoral maps, the U.S. Supreme Court this week halted a lower court’s ruling ordering the state to redraw its congressional and statehouse maps.
The high court’s decision means Texas will likely use its current maps, which a federal court in San Antonio ruled discriminatory this year, for next year’s elections while it considers the state’s appeal of the lower court’s decision.
If the Supreme Court sides with the lower court, it could reshape Texas’ political landscape. If not, it could mean a major victory for state officials who have defended the legality of the maps for most of the decade.
Here’s what you need to know about Texas’ yearslong legal battle over redistricting.
QUESTION: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Answer: In 2011, minority lawmakers and civil rights groups sued the state over its electoral maps, saying Texas legislators drew them to limit the voting power of AfricanAmericans and Latinos. They successfully stopped the state from implementing those maps, and a federal court in Washington ordered that new maps be drawn.
In 2012, a panel of three federal judges in San Antonio recommended new congressional and statehouse maps that could be used to fix the original maps. The Legislature adopted the panel’s maps in 2013 with minimal changes.
But plaintiffs in the case argued that the maps the panel suggested were a starting point for changes, and the Legislature’s refusal to do more constituted an intent to discriminate against minorities.
Four years later, the panel ruled in August that parts of the 2013 maps, which are used for state elections, are discriminatory. The panel invalidated two congressional districts and ordered nine statehouse districts redrawn. Now that the Supreme Court granted the state’s request to temporarily block the lower court’s ruling until an appeal can be considered, it’s up to the justices to decide where the case goes next.
Q: WHY IS IT A BIG DEAL?
A: Plaintiffs argue that they are fighting to ensure that minorities get fair representation when voting in elections. But because blacks and Latinos vote largely for Democratic candidates, reshaping electoral districts to boost minority representation could lead to more Democrats in office. Such a change could have a ripple effect on public policy and legislation.
Republican state leaders, whose party benefits from the way the map is drawn, say the districts are fair and drawn without discriminatory intent.
Q: HOW WOULD DALLAS VOTERS BE AFFECTED?
A: If the lower court’s ruling is upheld, Dallas-Fort Worth could see a major shift in the makeup of its statehouse districts. Five were ordered redrawn: Districts 103, 104 and 105 in western Dallas County and 90 and 93 in Tarrant County.
Changing those districts would have a ripple effect on surrounding districts, which could shift the political leanings of the area.
Q: WHAT ABOUT VOTERS IN THE REST OF THE STATE?
A: The same effect would occur in the other House districts and the congressional districts that were ruled invalid. The judges also ruled that Districts 32 and 34 in Nueces County and Districts 54 and
55 in Bell County should be redrawn.
The two congressional districts are in Corpus Christi, held by Republican Blake Farenthold, and in Central Texas from San Antonio to Austin, currently held by Democrat Lloyd Doggett.
Q: Couldn’t the Supreme Court fix this?
A: The Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of justice, but it still needs to follow legal processes and timelines. The state has said it needs a decision on changes to the maps by Oct. 1 to implement them by next year’s elections.
The Supreme Court’s term begins the first Monday of October, which would put its deliberations over the maps a day after the state’s deadline. The plaintiffs have said the deadline is arbitrary and could be pushed back, but that could cause confusion in elections that courts prefer to avoid.
Q: WHAT RULING CAN TEXANS EXPECT, AND WHEN?
A: If the Supreme Court takes up the appeal, it’s unclear what result it would hand down. The four liberal justices dissented on the court’s order to grant the state’s motion to delay the redrawing of the maps. But the other five justices who granted the motion wouldn’t necessarily rule in favor of the state. It just means they wanted to hear arguments from both sides.
The plaintiffs will likely ask the justices to uphold the lower court’s ruling, leaving that court to draw new maps. The state will likely ask the court to throw out the case, arguing that lawmakers did what the lower court asked by using its template to draw new maps in 2013.
But how the justices will rule, and when they will issue their opinion, is difficult to predict.