The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a voting redistricting case in Texas, allowing a map declared unlawful to remain in effect until a federal appeals court reviews the decision.
This decision has broader implications beyond Texas, potentially making it harder for plaintiffs in other states to challenge similar maps.
The redistricting plan in question cuts into a precinct with a black and Latino majority, and the commissioners who approved it are mostly Republicans. (Trending: Dr. Fauci Says the Unthinkable About Going To Church)
U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown threw out the map, ordering a new one before the 2024 election filing deadline, but the 5th Circuit stayed his ruling.
“Even though this case is only about a local district map in Galveston, it has much broader implications,” analyst Steve Vladeck said.
“The [5th US Circuit] court of appeals justified letting the unlawful map stay in place in a way that will make it much harder, going forward, for plaintiffs in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas to persuade any federal judge to block an unlawful map except in very short windows after elections take place,” Vladeck added.
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices dissented, arguing that the stay disrupted the status quo.
The new map was implemented without prior “preclearance” by the Justice Department, and the plaintiffs argue that it diminishes the voting power of black and Latino voters.
“The circumstances and effect of the enacted plan were mean-spirited and egregious given that there was absolutely no reason to make major changes to Precinct 3,” Brown wrote.
“The Fifth Circuit’s stay itself disrupted the status quo — an election map concededly lawful under Circuit precedent and nearly identical to the maps that have governed the election of Galveston County’s commissioners for decades,” Justice Elana Kagan wrote.
“In imposing a different map, acknowledged to violate current law — on the theory that the Circuit might someday change that law — the Court of Appeals went far beyond its proper authority.”
“The decision gutting the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act opened the door to the current challenge,” Campaign Legal Center attorney lawyer Mark Gaber said.
Most Popular:
Hunter Biden’s Own Memoir Is Coming Back To Haunt Him In Criminal Trial
LeBron James Shares Gun Advice For Americans
Top Democrat Loses In Historic Landslide
