Parties on both sides have filed briefs for summary judgment in the upcoming federal trial (Walter Session et al. v. Rick Perry et al.) concerning Texas congressional re-redistricting, and there are no surprises. The motions, which will be presented to the court in Austin three days before the Dec. 11 trial, are concerned less with the merits of the new congressional map than with whether the Legislature acted with clear constitutional authority in taking up redistricting in a nondecennial year.
The lawsuit combines the several actions filed in various federal courts. The plaintiffs, representing the primarily Democratic case against redistricting, argue that there is a legal map in place, drawn by the court in 2001, and that there is no defensible reason to replace it with a middecade map. To redraw the lines for partisan advantage without significant population change, the plaintiffs argue, is “nothing but an affront to our democratic process.” Defending the process, Attorney General Greg Abbott and his colleagues respond that there is no constitutional limitation on the Legislature’s obligation to redistrict and that the plaintiffs’ claims on that score as well as on excessive partisanship should be dismissed prior to trial.
Few observers expect the court to grant summary judgment to either party. What the court will do is up in the air — as evidenced by its own order to Texas county officials, via Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey Connor, that they should be prepared to run the March 9 primaries under either the new or the old map. U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett told an audience of Austin Democrats last week that the likelihood of the court overturning the new map is “50-50 — it could even be less than that,” explaining why he is already running hard for the new Austin-to-Harlingen District 25.
By contrast, four Mexican-American legislators told Quorum Report that they’ve been contacted by Department of Justice officials charged with preclearing the new map for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and were encouraged by the thoroughness of the DOJ officials. “I could sense a real feeling of interest in my concerns,” said state Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville. “I told [the DOJ attorney] that despite the tremendous growth in the Hispanic population, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, our representation was being diluted and that the Voting Rights Act had been violated.” Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, and Reps. Jim Solis, D-Harlingen, and Juan Escobar, D-Kingsville, were also contacted by the DOJ.
The Texas NAACP also formally weighed in, as President Gary Bledsoe wrote to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, “The plan clearly dilutes African-American voting strength” and violates the VRA. Bledsoe also asked that only career DOJ employees, not political appointees, handle the preclearance review, because certain DOJ officials with histories of working with anti-affirmative action groups “cannot be expected to be fair in assessing issues relating to minority rights.”
This article appears in November 21 • 2003.
