Redistricting case appeal is likely

10 Jun 2005 // A redistricting map that opened the way for Republicans to land a majority of Texas' congressional spots is likely on its way back to the U.S. Supreme Court after a three-judge federal panel ruling.

The panel on Thursday rejected for the second time a constitutional challenge to the 2003 congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, that put the most Texas GOP officials in Washington since Reconstruction.

“This has just always been a step along the road back to the Supreme Court,” said Renea Hicks, an attorney for Democrats who challenged the plan.

Attorneys for Democrats and minority interests, who said an appeal of the panel's decision is almost certain, argued the map of congressional districts was overly partisan, politically motivated and diluted minority votes.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who defended the map in court, said he hoped the panel's ruling would end the more than two-year saga.

“As the federal panel today concluded once again, the Texas redistricting plan is entirely consistent with federal law and the United States Constitution,” Abbott said.

Last year, the U.S. District Court panel for the Eastern District of Texas said the map redrawing congressional voting districts was constitutional. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to Texas for review by the panel.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry called three special sessions in 2003 to complete the new map of Texas districts. Democrats fled the state in two quorum-breaking walkouts as they tried to stop a vote on the map.

The GOP, led by DeLay, eventually won the battle and four of the five Democrat lawmakers targeted for defeat with the new districts lost their U.S. House spots on Election Day.

“This is just another confirmation that redistricting brought about fair representation for the people of Texas.” said Dan Allen, DeLay's spokesman.

Attorneys for Democrats and minority groups claim the map is unconstitutional because it produced illegal gerrymandering – manipulating voting districts to give one party an unfair advantage. They also argued that it swindled thousands of minority Texans out of their voting rights.

The three-judge panel reconfirmed its original decision that the map did not unconstitutionally gerrymander Texas voting districts for partisan purposes.

“Ultimately, we will adhere to our earlier judgment that there is no basis for us to declare the plan invalid,” the judges said in the ruling.

Hicks and fellow Democrat attorney, Gerry Hebert, said they plan to appeal the panel's decision to the Supreme Court. An appeal must be filed within 60 days.

When the case was sent back to Texas, the judges were asked to decide standards for determining whether a redistricting map was drawn to give one political party an advantage so unfair it violated the constitution.

Herbert said the judges failed to set out those guidelines.

“The real message of this case is that ... even if you discriminate against minority voters and undermine their voting strength, you can hide behind the shield of partisan gerrymanding and get away with it,” Hebert said.