Still Fighting Redistricting

Plaintiffs argue state used inaccurate census data

The state filed its response to an amicus brief filed by Travis County, among others, in the redistricting case that is set for hearing at the end of the week in Dallas.

Attorney General Greg Abbott released a series of briefs late Friday afternoon, including a response to an amicus brief filed by University of Texas law professors, Travis County, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, who wrote that mid-decade redistricting should take into account the "phenomenal growth" and population shifts in Texas between 2000 and 2003.

A three-judge panel heard the challenge to the Texas redistricting case last summer. Last January, they ruled in favor of the state. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that judgment and sent the case back to the three-judge panel, asking them to reconsider the case in light of the ruling on the Pennsylvania redistricting case of Vieth v. Jubelirer, which also took up the issue of political gerrymandering.

The Vieth case was a 4-1-4 split, with Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle, stating in his opinion that he could not support a case for partisan gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, if only because plaintiffs in the case had not provided what might be considered "judicially manageable" standards for what might be considered partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court now looks toward the Texas case for those standards.

The UT professors, along with Travis County and LULAC, argued that the state's redistricting plans violated "one person, one vote." As the minority population shifts and changes, those groups are no longer accurately represented by 2000 census data. The amicus brief argues that the state did not make a "good faith effort" to take those population shifts into account when the map was redrawn in 2003.

In its response, the state argues that a "one person, one vote" argument is "an undisguised attempt at a backdoor judicial prohibition on 'mid-decade' redistricting" that the court has already concluded was both legal and permissible. Decennial census data is considered "presumptively valid for redistricting," absent a substantial showing to the contrary. The state goes on to say the claim failed because the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of pointing out any equal-population violation the new map created.

The brief cites a number of Supreme Court cases that support the use of decennial data as the 'best population data available,' lacking any replacement data of equal validity. The fact that the census data is the "best available" is undisputed, according to the state's brief, and the plaintiffs didn't offer an alternative or provide a map that demonstrates how the lines could have been redrawn for a fairer balance.

"That the University Professors and Travis County have not offered legal authority is no slight on their research skills," wrote the state in its brief. "Rather, it reflects that the rules they propose are both novel and contrary to law. Their arguments – by demanding a presumption of unconstitutionality – ask this Court to overrule binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that the burden of proof in equal-population claims falls on the plaintiff and the requirement that the plaintiff offer a means of achieving a lower population inequality."

The three-judge panel, led by Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the 5th Circuit Court, will take testimony on the redistricting challenge in Dallas this Friday, Jan. 21.

Got something to say? The Chronicle welcomes opinion pieces on any topic from the community. Submit yours now at austinchronicle.com/opinion.

  • More of the Story

  • Naked City

    Headlines and happenings from Austin and beyond

    Naked City

    Alliance for a Clean Texas says lawmakers can create one

    Naked City

    The GAO condemns White House Drug Office 'news reports' on itself as 'illegal covert propaganda'

    Naked City

    South Congress' 1400 block would be completely overhauled with condos, garage

    Naked City

    State AG tries to shut down the nation's biggest mass e-mailers

    Naked City

    Council (again) tries to tackle roadside advertising clutter
  • Naked City

    The Sunset Commission issues recommendations to improve the Texas Education Agency

    Naked City

    Progressive lawmakers seek to protect gay, lesbian, and transgendered students

    Naked City

    Dems wary of, but don't challenge, new Ethics Committee powers

    Naked City

    Your guide to Black Thursday activities

    UT Says No Nukes

    Yudof recommends against Los Alamos bid

    An Education Wish List

    A business think tank says more funding is needed to send low-income kids to college

A note to readers: Bold and uncensored, The Austin Chronicle has been Austin’s independent news source for over 40 years, expressing the community’s political and environmental concerns and supporting its active cultural scene. Now more than ever, we need your support to continue supplying Austin with independent, free press. If real news is important to you, please consider making a donation of $5, $10 or whatever you can afford, to help keep our journalism on stands.

Support the Chronicle  

READ MORE
More by Kimberly Reeves
"People's Summit" Aims to Refocus State's Attention on Last Year's Freeze Disaster
Winter Storm Uri death toll may be more than 800

Feb. 17, 2022

Texas Officials Optimistic as Freezing Temps Approach
Texas Officials Optimistic as Freezing Temps Approach
Peak energy demand forecast for Friday morning

Feb. 2, 2022

KEYWORDS FOR THIS STORY

Vieth v. Jubelirer, redistricting

MORE IN THE ARCHIVES
NEWSLETTERS
One click gets you all the newsletters listed below

Breaking news, arts coverage, and daily events

Can't keep up with happenings around town? We can help.

Austin's queerest news and events

Eric Goodman's Austin FC column, other soccer news

Behind the scenes at The Austin Chronicle

Information is power. Support the free press, so we can support Austin.   Support the Chronicle