Supreme Court Blocks Redrawn Texas Congressional Map, Sides with State in Redistricting Dispute
The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision along ideological lines, has temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that challenged the redrawn congressional map in Texas. The court’s order, issued recently, found that the district court “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith” when interpreting evidence related to the map’s creation.
The dispute stemmed from a mid-decade redistricting effort initiated by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, at the request of former President Donald Trump. Abbott called a special legislative session with the stated goal of ousting five Democratic U.S. Representatives. The impetus, according to court documents, was based on concerns raised by Harmeet Dhillon, then head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, who argued Texas had unconstitutional “coalition districts” – those with a non-white majority comprised of Black and Latino voters.
Texas lawmakers openly acknowledged acting with partisan motives, stating their intent was not based on racial considerations. Following the legislative session, voting rights advocates alleged that the redrawn districts near Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth were specifically designed to dismantle areas where Latino and Black voters held a majority.
A U.S. District Court, led by Judge Jeffrey Brown, initially ruled in favor of the challengers, finding evidence suggested the legislature had acted to fulfill the DOJ’s racial goal of eliminating coalition districts, rather than for purely political gain. Judge Brown proposed reverting to the 2021 map originally drawn by the Republican-led legislature.
However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, citing the ”Purcell principle” – a legal precedent discouraging alterations to election rules close to an election. Texas attorneys argued that further delay would disrupt the upcoming election cycle, as the filing deadline for candidates is December 8th. The court agreed, stating lower federal courts should ”ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote a concurring opinion, noting the Texas map, like a similar effort in california aimed at electing more Democrats, was driven by “partisan advantage pure and simple.”
The decision represents a win for Republicans and a setback for Democrats and voting rights groups. It aligns with the conservative majority’s view that drawing election districts is primarily a “political question” for state lawmakers. However, the ruling also comes despite established court precedent recognizing racial gerrymandering as unconstitutional under the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Justice Kagan arguing the court “disrespects the work of a District Court” and “disserves the millions of Texans” who she believes were assigned to districts based on their race.
