An Odd Map, A Big Flap
Texas redistricting comes before the Supreme Court
Texas has always prided itself on doing things big. And it more than lived up to that reputation in 2003, when its lawmakers adopted an audacious gerrymandering plan, conceived by Texas Republicans and former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, that helped the GOP pick up six congressional seats in the Lone Star State.
The plan was so bold that it vanquished targeted Democrats whose districts had been broken up; it bolstered GOP control of Congress; and it gave Texas the largest Republican delegation in Washington. But was it constitutional? The U.S. Supreme Court will consider that question this week when it hears challenges to the unusual timing of the plan and arguments that the odd recarving of districts--including one that became a 300-mile-long corridor from Austin to the Rio Grande--violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
"This is the single most important redistricting case that the court will hear this decade," says former 13-term Texas Rep. Martin Frost, the most prominent Democratic casualty of DeLay's master plan, "and it will have far-reaching effects."
Political edge. Other states, including Colorado and Arizona, that are grappling with challenges to their own redistricting plans will be watching the Texas case closely. So will political operatives seeking an edge in upcoming elections. Will the justices let the gerrymandering plan stand? Or will they decide to rein in lawmakers' ability to remake congressional districts whenever and however they like?
Not since it intervened in the 2000 presidential deadlock has the Supreme Court waded into such a politically fraught election case. DeLay, a Texas representative who has stepped down as majority leader, is facing charges in connection with allegedly funneling corporate funds into state elections to set the stage for redistricting. Prominent Democrats and Republicans are lined up on opposite sides. And the U.S. Justice Department signed off on the Texas plan even though its own lawyers found that it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting black and Hispanic voting power.
Gerrymandering is nothing new. A scholar traced the practice to the colony of Pennsylvania in the early 18th century, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2004 opinion in the most recent gerrymandering challenge decided by the court. In that case, justices declined to limit excessive partisanship in redistricting and let stand a 2002 Pennsylvania plan that solidified the GOP's hold on a number of districts.
But Texas adds new twists. Redistricting, required when states gain or lose congressional seats based on population changes, is historically accomplished after U.S. census numbers are released at the start of each decade. But Texas Republicans rejected a court-devised redistricting plan and laid out their own in 2003, after they had gained control of the Legislature. The timing, opponents argue, violates the Constitution, which provides for a census and congressional reapportionment every 10 years. Texas Republicans argue that it doesn't, however, specifically mention redistricting.
When the Texas plan was hatched, Democratic legislators famously fled to Oklahoma to prevent a vote , and DeLay was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for asking federal aviation officials to track them. The drama is likely to continue. Legal experts are wondering whether justices will define unconstitutionally partisan gerrymandering, rule that the Texas plan violates minority rights, or simply decide that mid-decade redistricting is illegal and let the rest of the Texas plan stand.
This story appears in the March 6, 2006 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
advertisement
