Remember when #SCOTUS slapped down the lower federal court for adjusting TX districts to follow precinct lines, which went beyond addressing the VRA issues?
Ordinarily one tweaks the old maps to defer to choices of state. But query whether same deference is owed to state *courts* rather than legislatures. I believe there is caselaw that says yes, But no usual fast track to get Section 2 remedies. Injunction very rare.
-
-
-
IIRC Court insisted on precincts because GOP did block by block split, putting rarely voting Hispanic blocks in TX23 to prop up its H% while
-
frequent-voting Hispanics were given to other CDs, which violated VRA and common decency. SCOTUS slap was for ignoring Lege lines elsewhere.
-
Yes, I agree. I thought the issue was aligning precincts to districts outside of the affected VRA districts
-
The lower court had ordered this map, drastically different from the Lege plan (c185). We use (c235) today. http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc220 …
-
FYI Scalia's opinion on the remand specifically mentions the lower court following precinct boundaries in their map (although it is clear this isn't the only issue he has with the court's plan) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-713.pdf …pic.twitter.com/mqIL2bQKU9
-
Ok, so this is complicated. Especially for Twitter. The GOP Lege had manipulated Hispanic voters in SA via splitting H precincts. The lower court overreacted and ordered no split precincts outside the VRA areas, as you note above. But that was an "also". The Supreme Court's
-
main objection to the lower court plan was how it radically altered the Lege's CDs elsewhere.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.