US Supreme Court Will Hear Texas' Redistricting Cases

Shutterstock

Shutterstock

In 2013, Republicans who control the state government rushed to permanently adopt those maps to use for the rest of the decade, until a new round of redistricting after the 2020 census.

In urging the justices to ratify the decision by the three judges, civil rights groups said that nearly all the districts at issue were originally adopted by Texas lawmakers in 2011 and were rife with racial bias.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear both of Texas' redistricting appeals.

A total of 36 states and the District of Columbia had asked the high court take up the issue. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton "applauded" the Supreme Court's decision, adding that the state is "eager for the chance to present our case before the Supreme Court" in a statement. It's unclear when the court will schedule oral arguments in the case, which is formally known as Abbott v. Perez.

A three-judge panel last summer found that two of the Texas congressional districts violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and were intentionally discriminatory.

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who is not seeking reelection, represents the 27th District and Rep.

In an NPR interview in July, Seliger denied any racial gerrymandering.

NZ run through Pakistan for record win
Separately, New Zealand skipper Kane Williamson has called on his bowlers to be more accurate in the final overs. Tim Southee (2-57) and Trent Boult (1-54) both claimed early wickets to give the bowling side the upper hand.

On the House side, the panel ruled that Texas needed to address violations in Dallas, Nueces, Bell and Tarrant counties where it said lawmakers diluted the strength of voters of color. Doggett's district was essentially overloading it with Democrat-leaning minority voters, the judges said.

No additional districts will be drawn while the Supreme Court mulls the state's appeal.

Various trade groups and 35 states had urged the high court to take up South Dakota's appeal. They argued that "the right to legal districts prevails" when choosing between delaying electoral deadlines and addressing "voters' ongoing harm" under the current maps.

In 2010, the state legislature chose to act. Repeated pleas by states after that to change the rule failed.

"These taxes fund education, public safety and the innumerable services that state governments provide", said Deb Peters, a Republican South Dakota state senator involved in the issue.

"The lower court's decisions to invalidate parts of the maps it drew and adopted is inexplicable and indefensible", Paxton said. Then, to help boost their chances, lawyers for the state helped to solicit 15 "friend of the court" briefs from retailers, states, economists and others even before the justices chose to hear the case. A ruling in that case is pending.

Because the Quill precedent was still binding, the state conceded that it could not win the case. Previously, there were two separate cases: One for the state's congressional map, and one for the Texas House map.

Latest News