Why Abbott lost in the D.C. district court, and why it matters
As most people who follow redistricting know by now, the D.C. district court ruled against the state and Attorney General Abbott, denying the state’s motion for summary judgment and refusing to preclear several state maps. The D.C. Court has since issued its ruling in the case, explaining why it denied the state’s motion for summary judgment:
“Although Texas’s alleged failure to account for the significant increase of the Hispanic population in the State does not establish retrpgression, it is relevant to the Court’s evaluation of whether the Congressional Plan was enacted with discriminatory purpose. A redistricting plan that does not increase a minority group’s voting power, despite a significant increase in that group’s population, may provide significant circumstantial evidence that the plan was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging that community’s right to vote.” (enphasis added)
The D.C. Court has recognized the elephant in the room, which is the growth in the Hispanic population. Abbott and the Legislature have acted as if it did not exist. The D.C. Court has framed the issue. The Supreme Court can’t ignore it. That doesn’t mean the plaintiffs are going to win, but it does mean that the issue is going to have to be addressed.
The eagerness with which the Supreme Court snapped up this case is not a good sign for the plaintiffs. The Roberts court showed itself to be a very activist Court in the Citizens’ United case, with little regard for the impact of its decisions on what might naively be called the common good. The Court favored the classes over the masses, to quote an old populist slogan. It has also grabbed other high profile cases, including the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare case. The Court has the chance to rewrite centuries of constitutional law, and I believe Roberts has a radical agenda that includes doing away with the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act and, quite possibly, the use of the Commerce Clause as the basis for government programs. This is going to be a momentous term for the Court, and I don’t think judicial restraint is going to be its hallmark. If the Texas Legislature is allowed to implement a map that does not increase minority voting opportunities despite an enormous increase in the number of minority voters, the Court will have legislated a significant degredation of the right to vote.
Governor Toolshed says:
Let’s see… rigged elections, rigged courts…
Yep, land of the free alright!
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
it isnt rigged if theyre legally appointed. or activist unless you dont like their decisions.
Reply »
Governor Toolshed Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
uhh, oh-kay… Are you a narc?
Reply »
Marbury says:
When PolitiFact (the national one, not the Statesman’s imitation) can rate the following statement only Mostly False, rather than Pants on Fire, the media is already setting the stage for a significant degradation in the constitutional balance of power:
In a watershed 1958 decision, “the Warren court asserted by itself that the Supreme Court was supreme over the president and the Congress.”
Newt Gingrich on Sunday, December 18th, 2011 in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/20/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-supreme-court-crossed-major-thr/
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
And the check on the USSC from the putatively equal other two branches should it issue a ruling they do not agree with is what, exactly?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“The Court has the chance to rewrite centuries of constitutional law, and I believe Roberts has a radical agenda that includes doing away with the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act and, quite possibly, the use of the Commerce Clause as the basis for government programs. This is going to be a momentous term for the Court, and I don’t think judicial restraint is going to be its hallmark”
shades of FDR, when he stacked the court with radical democrats, pushing the liberal agenda by the courts causing the decline of America.
Its time to swing the old pendulum back to following the US Constitution, protecting the sovereignity of America.
Its a terrible time to be a liberal.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
unless conservatives continue to nominate clowns who make buffoons of themselves.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
what would you know about being a clown?
Reply »
Governor Toolshed Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 1:35 am
Narc alert!
Pat Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 2:23 am
Um, JBB…FDR’s court-packing plan failed…
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 6:50 am
“Um, JBB…FDR’s court-packing plan failed”
yep Congress blocked his trying to add 2 more seats.
However what I said was “shades of FDR, when he stacked the court with radical democrats, pushing the liberal agenda by the courts causing the decline of America.” FDR was President from 1933 to 1945, when he stacked the court with liberals.
They gave us their first radical ruling by not using the US Constitution when they ruled on Everson Vs Board of Education in 1947 making it their foundation in their war on our culture.
Reply »
JK says:
The problem, of course, is that Section 5 is not designed to address growth issues. It is only designed to prevent retrogression against a benchmark. There is no ‘absolute retrogression’ in the state’s plan, and the DC court agreed that the state is not, under Section 5, required to draw an increased number of seats for minorities when the total number of seats increases (citing the Supreme Court’s ruling when Georgia gained an extra seat). If the state is required to draw more minority districts, it will be under Section 2, i.e. the San Antonio court. As for pre-clearance in general, if Congress had responded to the Austin case by revising the formula to eliminate dependence on data that’s 40 years old, liberals would have nothing to worry about. But they couldn’t bring themselves to do so, and now they will pay the price when Section 5 is completely struck down.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Good analysis Paul. This is the same majority that utilized, for probably the only time since its emergence, the equal protection clause, to insure the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
That’s a complete lie about the 2000 election. Unless you think it was right and proper for Gore’s team to only ask for recounts in Democratic counties.
Reply »
Pat says:
Paul, thats an interesting take. I’ve had a bit of personal face time with Roberts and my impression of him was that he stringently wished to avoid the kind of generation-upheaving court decisions like Dred Scott, Brown, and Roe. Rather, he expressed a favorable attitude towards narrow rulings on complex technical issues, and building large majorities around such points. Most of the marquee cases of the Roberts court, such as McDonald, Crawford, and NW Austin MUD, took this approach and left it to future courts to carve out the gritty details.
Then again, Citizens United happened. And you can’t discount the potential for animosity and motives of political revenge after the president’s public indictment of the Court at the SOTU.
This case depends on what Anthony Kennedy eats for breakfast in the morning.
Reply »
Robert says:
So the word “may” means nothing to Paul Burka let alone the fact that the court has not yet heard evidence in the case?
Interesting sense of justice.
Reply »