The Houston Chronicle reports on the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Texas (R)edistricting case.
One encouraging nugget:
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is expected to provide the pivotal vote on the matter as a court centrist, made clear the map could be rejected for another reason: Some districts redrawn by the Texas Legislature in 2003 may violate the federal Voting Rights Act by discriminating against minority voters.
In particular, Kennedy said he was concerned that Republican state lawmakers removed 100,000 Latino voters from the 23rd District in South Texas and made sure it remained 50.9 percent Latino to “make it look good.”
“It seems to me that’s an affront and an insult,” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked what percentage of minority voters would be sufficient to deem the district mostly minority.
“What’s the magic number?” he asked.
A reminder to not get too encouraged:
Additionally, three justices seem to agree that its a totally partisan maneuver
“Wow! That’s a surprise,” Justice Antonin Scalia quipped sarcastically.
“Legislatures redraw the map all the time for political reasons,” he added.
This partisanship (or ‘playing politics’ as Rs decry it of anyone who questions why or disagrees with their (sort-sighted) plans) is legal, and perhaps even for the good, the justices indicate.
but good for whom?
good for communities? NO
good for people? NO
good for political parties. YES.
i see, the opinion on political process from a Supreme Court Justice(R) is that it should favor invisible non-corporeal legal fictions over flesh-and-blood people and their communities. good call.