The Washington Post

Supreme Court struggles to resolve challenges to Texas redistricting

As the Supreme Court struggled on Monday to deal with the legal complexities of Texas’s redistricting efforts, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. summed up the court’s quandary:

“So how do we decide,” he asked, between “two wrong choices?”

More than an hour of oral arguments revealed that there might be even more wrong choices. But compromise was elusive, and the deadline is close.

The state says it needs a decision by Feb. 1 to hold primary elections April 3. Even that date is pushed back from the state’s original timetable.

There’s no doubting the importance of the decision: Texas’s booming population means four new congressional seats for the state. The electoral maps will have a big impact on which party claims the seats, and perhaps even which party controls the House of Representatives.

It is also of considerable importance to the state’s Hispanics, who account for nearly two-thirds of the state’s population growth and want to play a bigger role in Texas politics.

But the legal battle over redistricting is being played out in three courts with different missions, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wondered whether Texas should stand down for a bit.

“Texas has a very early primary,” Alito said. “Some states have them for congressional races in the fall, and the latest presidential primary I think is at the end of June.

“So why can’t this all be pushed back, and wouldn’t that eliminate a lot of the problems that we are grappling with in this case?”

Former Bush administration solicitor general Paul D. Clement, who is representing the Republican-controlled legislature and the redistricting plan it drew, told Alito that of course that was possible, but the timing of primaries is a decision usually left to states.

The maps drawn by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature were signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry (R). But because of past discrimination, Texas is one of the states covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That means its electoral laws cannot take effect until they are “pre-cleared” — approved by the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges in Washington.

Texas chose to go the judicial route, but a three-judge panel in Washington found problems and refused to quickly approve the plans. It has scheduled a trial for later this month.

In the meantime, a second three-judge panel in San Antonio drew a new plan, since the current electoral map cannot be used — it would violate “one-man, one-vote” standards because of the population growth.

Texas has asked the Supreme Court to keep that plan from taking effect, even on an interim basis. The judges did not base their work on the plan approved by the legislature, Clement said.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court could not use even as a guide a plan that had not been pre-cleared. “Doesn’t that turn Section 5 on its head?” she asked. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan had similar concerns.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed open to allowing the legislatively drawn plan to be used on an interim basis for the 2012 election. But other justices didn’t seem to support that position.

The Obama administration told the justices that the better option was to allow the use of the judicially drawn plan on an interim basis, even though it thought the court had not fully justified its decisions.

But Roberts told Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan that sending the maps back for more information seemed like a waste of time “when we are all under the gun of very strict time limitations.”

Kagan wondered whether the justices could direct the Texas court to start its deliberations with the legislatively drawn plans, but put the burden on Texas to prove that they met constitutional standards, rather than on the minority challengers to prove that they did not.

There are three cases in Perry v. Perez.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 18%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.