'On demand' redistricting upheld

Most redistricting occurs at the beginning of the decade. That's when new census data becomes available to apportion congressional seats nationwide to reflect population shifts and comply with the mandate of one- person, one-vote.

Opponents of the Republican plan had argued that if state lawmakers were allowed to redraw election districts whenever they perceived a partisan advantage, it would violate the one-person, one-vote principle because they would be relying on outdated census numbers.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach. "This is a test that turns not on whether a redistricting furthers equal- population principles but rather on the justification for redrawing a plan in the first place," Kennedy writes.

Some analysts have warned that if the high court endorsed mid-decade redistricting it might unleash a flurry of redistricting across the nation anytime state lawmakers perceive a partisan advantage in redrawing the election map.

In deciding the Texas case, the high court conceded that it remains highly splintered on the issue of when blatant partisan gerrymandering may become so unfair as to render a new election map unconstitutional.

At the same time, the court's ruling on Wednesday puts state lawmakers on notice that partisan motives will not shield them from scrutiny if newly drawn congressional districts dilute the political power of minority voters.

Wednesday's decision stems from an all-out political brawl in Texas that began in 2000 when the new census showed that because of population increases Texas would pick up two new congressional districts. At the time, the Texas House and Senate were controlled by different parties and the legislature was unable to agree on how best to create the new districts and redraw the old map. The job fell instead to the courts.

The judge-drawn map largely preserved the existing congressional districts, which meant Democrats continued to hold a majority of seats in the Texas congressional delegation despite growing GOP political clout in the state.

After Republicans gained control of both houses of the state legislature in 2002, the Republicans moved to redraw the map in a way that would undercut the political prospects of incumbent Democrats while boosting the chances of Republican candidates.

A primary architect of the plan was then- House majority leader Tom DeLay. Mr. DeLay has since stepped down from his powerful post and has announced his retirement from Congress. He is under indictment on charges that he funneled illegal campaign contributions to Republican state house candidates. Some of those successful candidates would later vote for the Republican redistricting plan. DeLay says his indictment was politically motivated by a prosecutor who is a Democrat.

Once Republicans took control of the Texas state legislature and announced plans to redraw the congressional districts, Democrats responded by going into hiding – twice – to prevent a quorum. First they fled to Oklahoma, and later hid in New Mexico.

Ultimately the plan was approved.

Democrats challenged the map in court, saying it violating constitutional protections of equal treatment and illegally diluted minority voting strength.

Republicans said the new map was aimed at correcting partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts by Democrats in years past.

Page: 1 | 2