Menus Subscribe Search

Supreme Court Messes With Texas, Voting Rights

• January 09, 2012 • 3:19 PM

There is a way the U.S. Supreme Court can extract some sense out of a wildly politicized Voting Rights Act it heard Monday, argues a prominent redistricting specialist.

“Don’t mess with Texas” — this time, the U.S. Supreme Court should have listened. The court has injected itself into a 10-gallon disaster that grows messier with every passing day. Today, the court hears arguments. If only it could slowly back out of the room.

The problem arises (again) from a Texas redistricting plan. Last cycle, Texas re-redrew a federal court’s lines, causing Democrats to twice flee the state to gut a legislative quorum. This caused then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to set federal law enforcement on their tail, which in turn earned Mr. DeLay a formal admonishment. The resulting districts were struck down under the Voting Rights Act; the Supreme Court found that they “took away the Latinos’ opportunity because Latinos were about to exercise it.”

This time around, the Texas Legislature drew lines without calling in air support. Because of past discrimination, Texas is subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which means the state must “preclear” election-related changes to ensure that they don’t reduce minority citizens’ practical ability to elect candidates of choice. No changes legally can be implemented until they are precleared. Most other jurisdictions that must preclear redistricting submit Section 5 changes to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has a relatively speedy procedure for assessing preclearance — and which has precleared every statewide map that it’s considered this cycle. Texas chose, instead, to go to a federal court in the District of Columbia — a permissible route, but a slower one, with the same substantive standards but a judicial decision-maker rather than the attorney general.

The D.C. court found that it couldn’t preclear the Texas plans yet, saying the state had used the wrong standards in assessing whether it complied with the act. And besides, said the court, there were serious allegations that Texas had intended to discriminate in drawing the maps, and those allegations of illegality needed to be worked out at trial.

Meanwhile, a different set of lawsuits was raging in a San Antonio federal court (17 different lawsuits have been filed over Texas lines so far this cycle). Based on new Census numbers, the districts from the last cycle no longer had equal populations, violating the constitutional guarantee of equal representation. And there were still other alleged problems with the new maps: problems with different parts of the Voting Rights Act, and allegations of racial and partisan gerrymandering. So with filing deadlines for candidates on the doorstep, nobody knew where anyone was running … because there were no valid districts to run in.

Right around Thanksgiving, the federal court in San Antonio drew temporary lines, for 2012 elections only. That’s when the Supreme Court stepped in. It stayed the temporary lines, apparently to hear Texas’s allegations that the San Antonio court should have paid more attention to the state’s wishes in drawing an interim plan. That’s the argument that the court is hearing today.

Every day at the court is another day’s misery for election administrators, who have an election to prepare for without districts (or candidates) to make preparation possible. The court does not do its finest work at a dead sprint, and it has given itself a thorny problem to resolve in a hurry.

The bind confronting the court is that there is no way to purge the process of potential gamesmanship. Before the San Antonio court drew its maps, there were no lawful districts: Existing districts were malapportioned, and the enacted plan had not been precleared. Texas law provides few criteria for state legislative districts, and none at all for Congress.

This vacuum creates bad incentives no matter what the legal regime. If the Supreme Court tells courts like San Antonio to defer to a state’s enacted plan, states could drag their feet on preclearance in D.C., in order to implement their wishes through courts back home. If not, those who oppose state plans could drag their feet in D.C. to delay implementing state maps that would be precleared validly in due course. And it’s all complicated by the prospect that the interim plan lines could themselves feed back into the preclearance decision. Yeek.

The least bad of the available options is for the court to go back to first principles. The whole point of Section 5 was to stop covered jurisdictions from immediately getting their way, based on demonstrated past problems with “their way.” Section 5 imposes delay — at least until either the DOJ or the D.C. federal court can sign off — as its entire reason for being.

It’s true that the Supreme Court has recently raised some questions about that reason for being. But this case is not an excuse to answer those questions. It’s not that the court is averse to expanding the question presented in the service of an overly bold holding. It’s that other cases will present the issue directly, without the imperative to sprint.

Which leaves today’s case. If the court is concerned with deference to a state sovereign, Texas’s legitimate policy interests can still be (imperfectly) recognized. The way to do what Texas appears to want, without risking the harm to minorities that Section 5 exists to protect, is to start with the last precleared expression of Texas’s desires. This “benchmark” plan should be the baseline for a court drawing an interim plan, with updates for population growth and guesstimates for compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The good news is that this is what the San Antonio court says that it did. There are doubtless flaws — the court was working at warp speed to put a plan in place before the elections had come and gone. But unless the imperfections are vast, time is too short in this emergency stay from an interim order for the Supreme Court to micromanage the process.

The DOJ has offered a promising face-saving solution: approve the San Antonio court’s general approach, but remand for that court to incrementally explain some of its particular choices. If the added scrutiny leads to a few tweaks that get even closer to the benchmark plan, everyone can claim victory. But this much is clear: with no particularly good answer other than flying us all around the world backward to bring us back to Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court needs to issue a rule in keeping with Section 5’s design, and then get out of the way. On the double.

Sign up for the free Miller-McCune.com e-newsletter.

“Like” Miller-McCune on Facebook.

Follow Miller-McCune on Twitter.

Add Miller-McCune.com news to your site.

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Justin Levitt
Justin Levitt is a professor at Loyola Law School-Los Angeles, where his courses include Law of the Political Process. He served in 2008 as the National Voter Protection Counsel for President Obama's presidential campaign, and his research has been cited by Congress and the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

More From Justin Levitt

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

August 1 • 2:22 PM

Warmer Parenting Makes Antisocial Toddlers More Empathetic

Loving care may be the best antidote to callous behavior in young children.


August 1 • 2:00 PM

The Federal Health Insurance Exchange Remains Surprisingly Active

New federal data, obtained by ProPublica under the Freedom of Information Act, shows nearly one million insurance transactions since mid-April.



August 1 • 6:00 AM

The Idea of Racial Hierarchy Remains Entrenched in Americans’ Psyches

New research finds white faces are most closely associated with positive thoughts and feelings.


August 1 • 4:00 AM

How and Why Does the Social Become Biological?

To get closer to an answer, it’s helpful to look at two things we’ve taught ourselves over time: reading and math.



July 31 • 4:00 PM

Thank You for Your Service: How One Company Sues Soldiers Worldwide

With stores near military bases across the country, the retailer USA Discounters offers easy credit to service members. But when those loans go bad, the company uses the local courts near its Virginia headquarters to file suits by the thousands.


July 31 • 2:00 PM

A New York State of Fracking

Court cases. A governor’s moratorium. Pending health study. A quick guide to the state of fracking in New York.


July 31 • 11:17 AM

How California Could Power Itself Using Nothing but Renewables

We don’t need fossil fuels.


July 31 • 8:00 AM

Should Athletes Train Their Memories?

Sure, but it probably won’t help.


July 31 • 6:00 AM

Universal Basic Income: Something We Can All Agree on?

According to Almaz Zelleke, it’s not a crazy thought.


July 31 • 4:00 AM

Medical Dramas Produce Misinformed, Fatalistic Viewers

New research suggests TV doctor dramas leave viewers with skewed impressions of important health-related topics.


July 30 • 4:00 PM

Still the World’s Top Military Spender

Although declining in real terms, the United States’ military budget remains substantial and a huge drain on our public resources.



July 30 • 2:04 PM

The Rise of the Nuisance Flood

Minor floods are afflicting parts of Maryland nearly 10 times more often than was the case in the 1960s.


July 30 • 2:00 PM

The (Mostly Awful) Things You Learn After Investigating Unpaid Internships for a Year

Though the intern economy remains opaque, dialogue about the role of interns in the labor force—and protections they deserve—is beginning to take shape.


July 30 • 12:00 PM

Why Coffee Shortages Won’t Change the Price of Your Frappuccino

You’re so loyal to Starbucks—and the company knows it—that your daily serving of caffeine is already marked up beyond the reach of any fluctuations in supply.



July 30 • 10:00 AM

Having Difficult Conversations With Your Children

Why it’s necessary, and how to do it.


July 30 • 8:00 AM

How to Make a Convincing Sci-Fi Movie on a Tight Budget

Coherence is a good movie, and its initial shoot cost about the same amount of money as a used Prius.


July 30 • 6:00 AM

Are You Really as Happy as You Say You Are?

Researchers find a universal positivity bias in the way we talk, tweet, and write.


July 30 • 4:00 AM

The Declining Wage Gap for Gay Men

New research finds gay men in America are rapidly catching up with straight married men in terms of wages.


July 30 • 2:00 AM

LeBron James Migration: Big Chef Seeking Small Pond

The King’s return to Cleveland is a symbol for the dramatic shift in domestic as well as international migration.


July 29 • 4:00 PM

Are Children Seeking Refuge Turning More Americans Against Undocumented Immigrants?

A look at Pew Research Center survey data collected in February and July of this year.


July 29 • 2:00 PM

Under Water: The EPA’s Ongoing Struggle to Combat Pollution

Frustration and inaction color efforts to enforce the Clean Water Act.


Follow us


Subscribe Now

Warmer Parenting Makes Antisocial Toddlers More Empathetic

Loving care may be the best antidote to callous behavior in young children.

The Rise of the Nuisance Flood

Minor floods are afflicting parts of Maryland nearly 10 times more often than was the case in the 1960s.

America’s Streams Are Awash With Pesticides Banned in Europe

You may have never heard of clothianidin, but it's probably in your local river.

How Textbooks Have Changed the Face of War

War is more personal, less glorious, and more hellish in modern textbooks than in the past. But there’s still room for improvement.

The Big One

One in two full-time American fast-food workers' families are enrolled in public assistance programs, at a cost of $7 billion per year. July/August 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.