Court Rules Texas Redistricting Discriminates Against Hispanics
Texas AFL-CIO Communications Director Ed Sills sends us this report from his daily e-mail newsletter. Sign up for the Texas AFL-CIO E-News at labor@texasaflcio.org .
A three-judge federal panel ruled Tuesday that Texas’ redrawing of political boundaries for Congress and the legislature discriminated against Hispanics and must be set aside under the federal Voting Rights Act.
The court found what opponents of the redistricting bills had long ago concluded—that in trying to maximize Republican seats, the legislative majority stepped on minority voting rights.
The opinion doesn’t seem likely to affect the Nov. 6 election, which is using interim maps approved by a different three-judge panel. It could force the legislature back to the drawing board during the 2013 legislative session, this time under constraints that the Republican majority had not previously acknowledged.
One next step appears certain: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately. Abbott has suggested he would challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as part of an appeal. The anti-discrimination requirements of Section 5 apply to a number of states with histories of voter discrimination, including Texas, but not to other states.
Redistricting blogger Michael Li posted these points for you redistricting wonks:
- Opinion appears to be a sweeping win for DOJ and groups opposing the state’s redistricting maps. Unanimous except (1) that Judge Griffith dissents with respect to finding of retrogression in treatment of CD-25 (the current Lloyd Doggett seat) and (2) that Judge Collyer did not join in the portion of the opinion relating to retrogression in the congressional map as a whole.
- Court finds that the state of Texas failed to show an absence of discriminatory purpose in the redrawing of SD-10. The court, however, rejects the contention that SD-10 is an ability to elect district since Wendy Davis was the only minority-preferred candidate to win the district and “a single victory is not the more exacting evidence needed for a coalition district.”
- On the congressional map, court finds retrogression in CD-23, CD-25 and CD-27 in state’s enacted plan. On CD-25, Judge Collyer and Judge Howell find the existence of an effective tri-ethnic coalition in CD-25: “The record demonstrates that no single group in CD-25’s try-ethnic coalition is sufficient numerous to elect its candidate alone, but together the coalition consistently wins general elections in the district.”
- On the state House map, court finds retrogression in HD-33 (Nueces), HD-35 (South Texas), HD-117 (Bexar) and HD 149 (Harris). The panel does not reach the question of discriminatory intent but “note[s] the record evidence causes concern” and “strongly suggests that the retrogressive effect we have found may not have been accidental.”
