Ugh.
The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a serious setback to those hoping Texas would see new congressional and House district maps ahead of the 2018 elections.
In separate orders issued Tuesday, the high court blocked two lower court rulings that invalidated parts of those maps where lawmakers were found to have discriminated against voters of color. The justices’ 5-4 decisions stay the rulings — which would have required new maps — as they take up an appeal from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented from the majority opinion.
[…]
The state argued in a legal brief that if the Supreme Court allowed the redrawing of the state’s proposed maps to move forward ahead of the election, the court risked throwing “the Texas election deadlines into chaos for the second time this decade.”
Election administrators have said they need clarity on district boundaries by October to meet timelines to prepare and send out voter registration certificates and avoid electoral delays.
Minority rights groups suing the state rebutted those claims, arguing that “the right to legal districts prevails” when choosing between delaying electoral deadlines and addressing “voters’ ongoing harm” under the current maps.
In siding with the state, the high court made it more likely that Texas will use its current maps in the upcoming elections. The high court could also choose to delay the March primary elections. Its decision is likely months away.
See here and here for the background. At this point, we’re either going to get the same maps as before for 2018, or we’re going to have a (possibly much) later primary. I suspect the former is more likely, which shows the power of having Section 5 (preclearance) of the Voting Rights Act versus not having it: Even if SCOTUS ultimately agrees with the lower court, the state will have gotten to use these illegal maps in four out of the five elections from the 2011 redistricting cycle. The consequences for breaking the law will be next to nothing. Under those circumstances, who wouldn’t take advantage?
The plaintiffs are keeping a stiff upper lip:
“I can’t say that I am pleased with this. I can’t say that I am surprised either,” said Jose Garza, counsel to the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. “At the end of the day it may all work out. Maybe it’s better to have this discriminatory plan in front of the court and have the state of Texas try to defend it sooner rather than later.”
[…]
Chad Dunn, the Texas Democratic Party’s general counsel, said he believes the evidence of discriminatory intent is so strong, the Supreme Court will agree.
“Getting a final resolution to this matter, that has essentially been pending since 2011, is a step in the right direction,” he said.
I hope you’re right, but it’s a little hard to feel positive about it right now.
ThinkProgress points out the elephant in the room:
It is likely that, if Senate Republicans had not held a seat on the Supreme Court open for more than a year until a Republican president could fill it, that this stay would not have been granted, and the 2018 election would be run under different maps.
It took that fifth vote on SCOTUS for this to happen. Let that sink in for a minute. Eyes on the prize, y’all. Rick Hasen, the Lone Star Project, the DMN, Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Michael Li, the Current, and the Observer have more.