Thursday, June 29, 2006
The court said parties could redistrict when they found it advantageous.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice John Roberts knows a dirty, rotten job when he sees one.
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race," he wrote Wednesday in the first major voting rights case of his tenure, a controversy that revolved around the rights of Hispanic and black voters in Texas.
Chief Justice Roberts' pungent comment punctuated a splintered ruling.
The court held that states are free to redraw congressional district lines at a time of their choosing, largely blessing Tom DeLay's bitterly contested handiwork in Texas and the gains it gave national Republicans.
With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy playing the role of majority maker, the court ruled the 2003 Texas plan violated the rights of Hispanics in the area around Laredo and ordered a lower court to review that part of the case.
But the justices imposed no timetable, and it was not clear whether Democrats would be able to win any changes in the Republican-drafted plan before the November elections.
Claim rejected
Additionally, the justices rejected a claim that Texas Republicans had violated the rights of black voters by breaking up a congressional district in the area around Fort Worth.
And they ruled more broadly that the Constitution does not bar states from redrawing political lines when one party or the other senses an advantage.
"With respect to a middecade redistricting to change districts drawn earlier in conformance with a decennial census, the Constitution and Congress state no explicit prohibition," Kennedy wrote.
Middecade redistricting for political purposes was not uncommon in the 1800s but has been rare over the last century, said Michael McDonald, an assistant professor in government and politics at George Mason University.
The Texas case prompted six of the court's nine justices to issue opinions. Justice Kennedy's was the pivotal one, though.
Only two justices, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, said the middecade redistricting showed that the Texas lawmakers were guilty of excessive partisanship.
"By taking an action for the sole purpose of advantaging Republicans and disadvantaging Democrats, the state of Texas violated its constitutional obligation to govern impartially," Justice Stevens wrote in dissent.
The rulings on the challenges to the rights of Hispanics and blacks were narrower, 5-4, Justice Kennedy in the majority on each.
Angela Hale, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general, said, "The timeline and the procedure for redrawing the only district requiring further action will be addressed by the three-judge federal district court.