Supremes Block Texas Maps: What Now?
The Supremes throw a monkey wrench into election maps and planning
By Richard Whittaker, Fri., Dec. 16, 2011
Late last week, the U.S. Supreme Court threw the Texas primaries into disarray by suspending the interim House, Senate, and congressional maps. Aside from throwing districts back in the blender, the justices have raised the very real possibility of two sets of primary elections in 2012.
Attorney General Greg Abbott had applied to Justice Antonin Scalia for a stay on the interim maps, issued last month by a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio (see "New Map Tweaks Local House Seats," Nov. 25). Just before close of business on Friday, Dec. 9, the Supreme Court issued that stay, effectively sending a wrecking ball right through the primaries for all those races. Candidates and campaign staff are now left in confusion as they try to figure out what this latest legal development could possibly mean. Thus far, there is almost no information. So while some Republicans may see this as a victory over an activist court, office seekers from all parties are once again left uncertain what seats they'll be running for.
The Supreme Court has given the appellants and appellees until Dec. 21 to file written briefs, and will hear a total of one hour of oral arguments on Jan. 9. However, filing for the March primaries had been scheduled to close on Dec. 15. Even if the court reaffirms the interim maps, the delay has already thrown the filing calendar out the window. This leaves Texas with a major conundrum: Either push all the primaries back to May and become an irrelevancy in the presidential nomination race, or hold two primaries – presidential, U.S. Senate, judicial, and State Board of Education on March 2, and House, Senate, and Congress either in early April or on the traditional primary run-off date of May 22 – and soak up the costs and confusion of both (and locally, running afoul of the city's separate May election). Seeing the confusion, Abbott issued a statement in which he said he understood "the need for speed" in resolving this matter, and the San Antonio panel agreed with him, holding a status conference on Tuesday to try to unravel the mess. However, the only thing that all parties could agree upon was to push the end of filing to Dec. 19 and to come back in January to resolve the rest of the calendar.
When creating the interim maps, all three judges on the San Antonio panel agreed that there were sufficient violations of the Voting Rights Act to require redrawing the Senate and congressional districts, though they split on the Texas House map. However, Scalia seems to have convinced a majority of his fellow justices that the state of Texas has enough of a case against the decision to at least merit a hearing.
While the dispute is primarily about the maps – and who will draw them – some Democrats are concerned that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas will use the occasion to launch a fresh offensive on key portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Both have been highly critical of Section 2, which prohibits voting discrimination, and Section 5, which requires federal preclearance for voting maps to ensure no discrimination on basis of race or color; both sections have been crucial in the protection of minority voting rights and representation. In a statement, Mexican-American Legislative Caucus chair Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer, D-San Antonio, said he was "deeply concerned" about the election disruption, but that he remained "unwavering" in his opposition to the gerrymandered maps Abbott is defending. He said: "If there ever was a textbook case of Voting Rights Act violations, this is it. We look forward to making our case before the United States Supreme Court."
Republican Party of Texas Chair Steve Munisteri said that the court's action proved that the district panel "exceeded [its] judicial authority and attempted to usurp the rightful duties of the Texas State Legislature," and said he hoped the justices would return to the original maps drawn by the Legislature. However, not every Republican will be happy with this latest turn of events. On a purely pragmatic basis, this means candidates from all parties must rethink their entire campaign strategies – or even whether they will run at all. Several GOP incumbents had announced their retirements after seeing the interim maps and may want to jump back in the race. There is also an unresolved question of what the date change means for candidates who have quit one office to run in another. Similarly, candidates who thought they were in safe seats have to again gear up their re-election machine. For example, Congressman Lloyd Doggett dissolved his campaign staff as soon as the federal panel ended his bruising primary fight with Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio. If the maps stay as they are, he should be bulletproof, but the court could throw him straight back into that fight – or a completely new primary.
Ultimately, the court's action leaves potential candidates like Travis County Democrat Dan Grant in a state of limbo. Grant, who's been weighing a congressional run, said he expects the court to approve fair maps. But he condemned what he called "Abbott's scheme to protect an illegal map," adding that it "may force a change in election dates and have the effect of confusing voters and suppressing turnout – and at an added cost to taxpayers when we can little afford it."
Got something to say on the subject? Send a letter to the editor.
