WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld almost all of a bitterly contested Texas congressional map engineered by then-Rep. Tom DeLay to help solidify Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.The high court by a 7-2 vote refused to overturn the entire map and rejected the argument that it involved an illegal partisan drawing of boundaries of voting districts."We reject the statewide challenge to Texas' redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander and the challenge to the redistricting in the Dallas area as a violation of the Voting Rights Act," Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority. Only one district violated the federal voting rights law and must be redrawn, he said.Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer voted to strike down the entire plan. Stevens said it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny because the sole motivation was a desire to minimize the strength of Texas Democrats.Julian Zelizer, a Boston University professor and expert on U.S. politics, called it a "huge decision" by the justices that "made it easier for parties to protect themselves."Other experts said the ruling gave states more discretion to do mid-decade redistricting. Traditionally, states redraw their congressional boundaries once at the start of the decade, just after the national Census.J. Gerald Hebert, a lawyer for the Texas Democratic challengers, said, "The decision could open the floodgates for partisan redistricting."Mary Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters, said "We now can expect an even more vicious battle between the political parties as they redraw district lines every two years for partisan gain."Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court's newest members who were appointed by President George W.) Bush, voted to uphold the entire plan. Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry called the ruling a "clear victory."
Originally posted by Yeager as long as they uphold the 2nd amendment as an individual right I dont really worry about the other stuff.Things will tilt back towards the liberals, then after a time, things will shift back.On and on it goes, back and fourth....Its like tidal pools man, be glad for the moon
Does dismantling a district that is 21% black but regularly elects a white candidate whom the black community endorses violate Section 2 of the VRA? Based on the argument, the Court seems likely to reject that claim; indeed, I would be surprised if it received more than a couple of Justices endorsed this view. Since the 1990s, the Court has rejected the views of the career staff in the Voting Right Section in many cases, and I expect that to be so again here. But the particular way the Court rejects the claim could have great importance. It might do on a narrow basis closely tied to the particular facts of Texas. Or it might do so on the basis of principles that have implications for other claims of this general sort. The way the Court resolves this issue could also have implications for the current debates in Congress about renewing the VRA and what modifications, if any, to make in the existing law. This particular question in the Texas case ties directly in to those debates.If the Court strikes down even one district here as an unconstitutional gerrymandering, it would be a dramatic moment in the constitutional law of democratic politics. The Court has never struck down any election district, let alone a districting plan, as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander[/size]http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/rick_pildes_on_1.html
