Appeals Court Says Texas' Redistricting Maps Are Discriminatory; Texas Vows to Appeal

By Eric Nicholson Tue., Aug. 28 2012 at 4:24 PM

The federal government can be more elusive prey than the blackbuck.

When the Texas legislature passed new redistricting maps in 2011, it sure seemed that the lines had been drawn to dilute the power of Democratic-leaning Hispanic voters in favor of Republicans. State leaders swore that wasn't the case, but, rather than taking them to an unfriendly Justice Department for a review mandated by the Voting Rights Act, Attorney General Greg Abbott opted for a much more familiar option: he sued the federal government.

Michael Li had a good breakdown a while back of what was at issue and at stake. Texas was essentially trying to show in court both that the new maps were not drawn with a discriminatory intent and that they don't have a discriminatory effect by diluting the voting strength of minorities.

Today, the three-judge panel of George W. Bush appointees Rosemary Collyer and Thomas Griffith and Obama appointee Beryl Howell determined in a sprawling, 154-page opinion that the maps are indeed discriminatory.

Li is parsing out the specifics -- Texas failed to show an absence of discriminatory intent in redrawing state Sen. Wendy Davis' Fort Worth district -- but writes that it appears to be a "sweeping victory" for the feds.

Abbott took the news with characteristic humility:

The D.C. Court just ruled against Texas' redistricting maps. Will immediately appeal to #SCOTUS.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) August 28, 2012

He expounded upon the tweet in a written statement.

Today's decision extends the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits intended by Congress and beyond the boundaries imposed by the Constitution. The Attorney General's Office will continue defending the maps enacted by the Texas Legislature and will immediately take steps to appeal this flawed decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Washington DC court's decision applies to the maps originally enacted by the Texas Legislature--so the November elections will proceed as planned under the interim maps drawn by the federal court in San Antonio.

So it's over, except not.

We Recommend

CelebrateDivershitty

Naive white-guilt libtard "progressives" like Eric Nicholson can't wait to transform Texas into newer Mexico. Eric can't wait to live in a place that has even more of a Mexican majority, just to assuage his wimpy white guilt. Hey Eric if you get the future you want, you are going to be dodging a lot more paintballs and probably worse, you naive dipshit.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Republicans are a desperate lot these days. Because they appeal to a monochromatic base that is shrinking they have no choice other than to tamper with voting rights. Clearly, this is a last ditch maneuver to save a dying republican party.

everlastingphelps topcommenter

1 Like

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz My monochromatic, you mean, Americans?

You're going to be really shocked in November when all the whistling-past-the-graveyard in the media is put to the test.

everlastingphelps topcommenter

1 Like

<i>diluting the voting strength of minorities.</i>

Right, because one man - one vote ain't got shit on "some men are more equal than others."

observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps Do you deny that a 51% majority could theoretically gerrymander districts so that 100% of elected officials are of that majority? Would that somehow better represent the idea of "one man one vote"?

everlastingphelps topcommenter

@observist If you're trying to find someone to defend gerrymandering, I'm not your guy. My choice would be districts with the shortest perimeters, and people can live where they want to live.

This idea of "gerrymandering is usually bad, but if we let our enlightened philosopher kings-- I mean, judges decide how to do it, it's better for everyone" is crazy.

everlastingphelps topcommenter

@observist @everlastingphelps I just told you, objective rules based on using the shortest perimeters. Take the judgment calls out of it, and just make it math problem.

observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps If we accept that congressional districts are based on population, then we can't just draw lines on the map and let people move in or out - the boundaries have to be redrawn over time. Given that, how would you set the boundaries? Do you think it's better to let one political party or the other set them?