Breaking: SCOTUS Strikes Down Interim Redistricting Maps

The opinion is interesting reading (0.00 / 0)

Basically, SCOTUS said that the San Antonio court should draw new maps for the 2012 election, but should only change the legislative maps where there is a significant legal challenge. If the challenge is based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, or on the US Constitution, then it has to have a "likelihood of success" to invalidate that part of the map. If it's based on Section 5, then it only has to have a "reasonable probability" of success, since only the DC court is authorized by the VRA to decide Section 5 questions. The San Antonio court isn't even allowed to make small improvements, like keeping precincts intact or better balancing population, without a valid legal justification.

In other words,

1) Wherever the Lege's maps are unambiguously legal, we have to use them, and
2) Where the maps are arguably illegal, the court has to take into account the legal parts of the Lege's wishes.  

It's interesting that the decision was both unanimous and centered on separation of powers. Aside from Justice Thomas, none of the justices tried to declare parts of the VRA unconstitutional, as many people had feared. (Thomas had previously said that he thinks Section 5 of the VRA is unconstitutional, and just repeated that opinion without elaboration.)

They also didn't touch the question of state vs. federal authority. Basically, they just said that the role of the courts is to fix the illegalities of the legislature, not to fix the stupidity or greed of the legislature, and sent the whole thing back to San Antonio.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 17:07:52 PM UTC