Section V is on the ropes

[krazen1211]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/voting-rights-act-under-fire-at-supreme-court-88178.html

Based on their questions and statements Wednesday, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito seemed likely to strike down the disputed part of the Voting Rights Act.





I suspect there will be some new fresh redistricting.

[krazen1211]

Rick Perry is allegedly planning a special session for such redistricting.

A new formula would I suppose have to come from the US congress. In the interim S5 could be voided until such a new formula, if it comes at all.

[krazen1211]

Well, it makes a difference for interim plans.

The 2004 elections were held under the state passed map. Given that S2 litigation takes time, its not entirely unlikely that the 2014 elections are held under the state passed map.


In its 9-0 opinion the Supreme Court clearly dictated that any S2 litigation requires the court to adhere to the state passed map, rather than go rogue and completely draw a fresh map like C220.

When Texas Republicans pass a fresh map that resembles C185 they will probably capture the 33rd district and a handful of legislative seats. Alternatively, a deal might be cut to provide a Hispanic dominated CD-33 and cut Veasey out of the seat. Garcia has already said he wants the district before Veasey took it without the support of the Hispanic population.

[krazen1211]

Is the existing map legislative-drawn or court-drawn?  If they are replacing an existing legislative-drawn map, I think it is quite possible an injunction to use the old map could be issued as part of any case that might be brought against a new map if it has a chance of succeeding.  Also, if Texas times the passage of their map to intentionally hold an election before an S2 case can be resolved, then I could easily see that being used as a justification to change the law so that S2 cases could provide the same level of procedural delay as S5 preclearance does now.

Preclearance is a burden I would like to see gone, but if it struck on either a temporary or permanent basis, then yahoos trying to game the system could well see it being brought back, with their shenanigans being the evidence used to prove there is a rational basis that it is still needed.  Preclearance was included in the VRA precisely because previous civil rights legislation had been playing whack-a-mole.  One abuse would be dealt with and another would be inserted in its place.

The existing map is based off the state's plan, C-185, with the following provisions.



This Court has observed before that "faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by judicial order, a court, as a  general rule, should be guided by the legislative policies underlying" a state plan-even one that was itself unenforceable-"to the extent those policies do not lead to violations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act."

Where a State's  plan faces challenges under the Constitution or §2 of the Voting Rights Act, a district court should still be guided by that plan, except to the extent those legal challenges are shown to have a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court’s order suggests that it may have intentionally drawn District 33 as a “minority coalition opportunity district” in which the court expected two different minority
groups to band together to form an electoral majority. If the District Court did set out to create a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth, it had no basis for doing so.




The additional criteria is of course the S5 guesswork. Given the following criteria, the Congressional maps ended up pretty similar except that CD-33 was created and the surrounding districts altered.

[krazen1211]

This is a poster child for why preclearance is unworkable.  Without it, the SA Court would have issued its ruling, and it would be well into the appeals process.

Scott Walker signed redistricting in August 2011. Certain organizations complained that the Hispanic population had been fractured into 2 assembly districts rather than packed into a single district.

In March 2012, the court agreed, redrew the 2 districts at hand, and the process was over.


Rick Perry on the other hand signed redistricting in May 2011 (3 months before Walker did in terms of the 2 year election cycle). It's hardly as if they waited until weeks before the election to spring a last second map.

[krazen1211]

Rick Perry is allegedly planning a special session for such redistricting.

A new formula would I suppose have to come from the US congress. In the interim S5 could be voided until such a new formula, if it comes at all.

You just watch the uproar that would come from the Hispanic community if the legislature and governor try to take away their representation(and do it mid-decade at that).  That is what this is, pure and simple. 

The state's map would claim Marc Veasey's district. He is not a Hispanic and defeated a Hispanic in the primary.

[krazen1211]

Rick Perry is allegedly planning a special session for such redistricting.

A new formula would I suppose have to come from the US congress. In the interim S5 could be voided until such a new formula, if it comes at all.

You just watch the uproar that would come from the Hispanic community if the legislature and governor try to take away their representation(and do it mid-decade at that).  That is what this is, pure and simple. 

The state's map would claim Marc Veasey's district. He is not a Hispanic and defeated a Hispanic in the primary.

OK, fine, then Democrats can do the same thing in New York by getting rid of Grimm and Gibson easily as payback.  All they need to do is get the independent Dems on board by also redrawing the State Senate map to be safely Dem so they dont even have to worry about being bipartisan anymore. 

Maybe. But it isn't the GOP taking away Hispanic representation. In 3 such districts in Texas white liberals and black liberals booted them in the primary.

[krazen1211]

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-legislature-may-have-to-have-special-session-for-redistricting.html/

Texas is preparing to engage in fresh gerrymandering.

[krazen1211]

Great news: Supreme Court released decisions today all written by liberals. The conservatives might have written the Section V, the Affirmative Action, and the marriage decisions!

[krazen1211]

Great news: Supreme Court released decisions today all written by liberals. The conservatives might have written the Section V, the Affirmative Action, and the marriage decisions!

Is that how Supreme Court announcements work?

We know Section V is seriously endangered, but that's a novel theory.

Generally opinions are divided up in some equitable manner so each justice gets a few. So, if you're on the wrong end of a bunch of important 5-4's, you get the unanimous ones.

SCOTUSBLOG is guessing that Kennedy got the Affirmative Action case and Roberts will take Section V.