Lines in the Sand Afterwords

Lines in the Sand Afterwords - Afterword The Supreme Court...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Afterword The Supreme Court Rules in Lulac v. Perry Democrats urged that it was wrong for the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature to replace an existing valid redistricting plan solely for partisan reasons. Other challengers urged that the Texas redistricting violated the constitutional mandate for districts of equal population because the Texas Legislature used inaccurate, outdated census data to replace a valid existing redistricting plan without state rather than partisan justification for doing so. Minority advocacy organizations, such as the G.I. Forum and LULAC, challenged the Texas redistricting plan as violative of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LULAC v. Perry was argued before the United States Supreme Court on March 1,2006. The Court expanded the time for oral argument for two full hours. The argument did not go well for the challengers. Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz was excellent in defense of the redistricting. Justices acknowledged being impressed with the state’s argument that the redistricting was justified by the Republican desire to overcome the effects of prior Democratic gerrymanders. By contrast, the attorney for the Democrats (Paul Smith of DC law firm Jenner and Block) was beset from the beginning by questions from Vieth . The Supreme Court Ruling On June 28 th , 2006 a divided Supreme Court upheld the redistricting plan statewide, but found that Texas had violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by reducing the opportunity of Hispanic voters to elect the candidate of their choice in District 23. The Justices split on the various legal issues with six different opinions stretching over 130 pages. The justices again agreed to disagree on the justiciability of the partisan gerrymandering claim, leaving that constitutional issue hanging, but with the state winning on the facts in this case. At least seven of the justices rejected the argument that redistricting plan violated the one person, one vote mandate of the Constitution, finding that the Court in the past had repeatedly held that a legislative body could replace a court plan.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/01/2010 for the course GOV 335N taught by Professor Karch during the Fall '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 2

Lines in the Sand Afterwords - Afterword The Supreme Court...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online