Posted on 04/29/2004 7:29:09 AM PDT by The_Victor
AUSTIN -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt another blow to Texas Democrats over congressional redistricting Wednesday by rejecting arguments in Pennsylvania that partisan gerrymandering can go too far.
Texas Democrats had hoped the court would set a standard for illegal partisan gerrymandering that would have bolstered their federal challenge to Texas districts drawn by the Republican-dominated Legislature last year.
Democrats in the Pennsylvania case had argued that a partisan gerrymander can violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Congressional districts in both states were drawn so tightly by Republican legislatures that the election results were all but a foregone conclusion before a single vote was cast.
Instead, the high court engaged in an argument over whether it should be hearing partisan gerrymandering cases at all.
Justice Antonin Scalia was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas in an opinion that says the courts have no business trying to decide whether partisan gerrymanders have gone too far. They said "fairness" is not a judicially manageable standard to apply to a legal challenge to a redistricting plan.
They lacked one vote to overturn an 18-year-old Supreme Court decision that said partisan gerrymandering cases can be subject to litigation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the majority in rejecting the Pennsylvania case. But he said the absence of an objective standard to measure partisan gerrymanders does not rule out of the emergence of one in the future.
"If a state passed an enactment that declared, `All future apportionment shall be drawn so as most to burden Party X's rights to fair and effective representation ... ,' we would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated," Kennedy wrote. "If that is so, we should admit the possibility remains that a legislature might attempt to reach the same result without that express directive."
Kennedy said the court may want to pursue whether a standard could be reached under claims that partisan gerrymanders violate a person's First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
The court's other four justices attempted to design a standard for measuring partisan gerrymandering, but it was rejected by the majority.
The Texas congressional redistricting case currently is pending before the Supreme Court. The court in June is expected to decide whether it should hear challenges to the Texas districts when the high court meets in a new session beginning next October.
J. Gerald Hebert, a lawyer representing Democrats in that case, said Wednesday's ruling shows a court majority is clearly concerned that partisan gerrymandering can violate constitutional rights.
"The search for a standard goes on, but there is a clear warning shot to legislators who are more interested in partisan greed than in fairness, democracy and equal representation," Hebert said.
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds said the Supreme Court upheld a political tradition.
"We're very pleased by today's decision affirming that redistricting is a political process and congressional boundaries can be drawn based on political criteria," Reynolds said. "This practice is not new and is used by both parties. It is a victory for the redistricting process, and we're looking forward to moving on."
The Texas redistricting process is expected to result in changing the state's congressional delegation from the 17-15 Democratic majority that existed after the 2002 elections to a 22-10 Republican majority after this year's elections.
Bwahahahahahahahahah. Wake up dude, yer dreamin'.
Precisely what Texas achieved when it performed its redistricting. Otherwise, we had a majority democRAT representation in a majority Republican state.
Translation:
"I haven't figured a way to create law to do this, but I'm still trying!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.