by TChris

Texas Republicans strong-armed their way to redrawn congressional districts that favored Republicans prior to the last congressional election. The Supreme Court today agreed to review that action.

In agreeing to hear two hours of argument in four different appeals dealing with the Texas redistricting plan, the high court is poised to confront to what extent the Constitution permits blatant partisanship in redistricting. In addition, the court could use the case to confront whether districts can be redrawn whenever a state legislature wants or must only be redrawn once every 10 years, when new census data is available. The court will also examine to what extent the concept of one-person, one-vote supersedes partisan considerations in redrawing election districts.

The Court has been deferential to the political process so long as the process produces districts that generally adhere to the “one person, one vote” principle. Why did the Court agree to revisit the issue in this case? Perhaps the justices were influenced by recent news reports revealing that political appointees in the Justice Department overruled career lawyers who believed the redistricting reduced minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps some of the justices were offended by the blatant nature of the partisan redistricting, which resulted from political will rather than new census data.