Gerrymandering has played a significant role in American politics since the country’s inception. This term, derived from Elbridge Gerry, a founding father and vice president under James Madison, has garnered both historical and contemporary attention, particularly from left-leaning groups seeking to ban partisan practices. The situation had been somewhat stuck, especially when Justice Anthony Kennedy, a crucial swing vote, was unable to provide a decisive opinion. However, with President Trump appointing Brett Kavanaugh, a firm constitutionalist, the Court upheld partisan gerrymandering in 2019’s Lucho v. Common Cause case, specifying that while racial gerrymandering is off-limits, partisan gerrymandering remains permissible.
This year, Texas took steps towards redistricting. Yet, a three-judge district court recently invalidated the new congressional maps, ordering the retention of the 2021 maps through the upcoming midterm elections. This ruling has potential implications for the Republican Party, possibly costing them five seats in the House. The court argued that the new maps would dilute minority representation, regardless of the lawmakers’ intentions to avoid racial discrimination. Following this surprising decision, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton promptly appealed to the Supreme Court. It’s noteworthy that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, nominated by Senator Ted Cruz, issued the ruling, with Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit dissenting.
Judges are expected to use emergency records sparingly to support their rulings. An emergency record allows for the suspension of judgments without extensive detail in urgent scenarios. The long-term misinterpretation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 presents an obstacle, given its current framework encouraging majority-minority districts. The justices are now grappling with the interpretation of these laws in cases like Louisiana v. Calais. It seems outdated to maintain such programs that sprung from a time of profound racial segregation. During hearings, Kavanaugh highlighted this issue, and some justices appeared eager to invalidate such practices. Ideally, a swift ruling from the court would allow Congress to adjust in time for elections.
The pressing nature of the situation is underscored by the upcoming Texas primary in March, with absentee voting commencing weeks prior. The ruling from the lower court has created considerable disorder, as candidates had hinge plans based on the new districts. There is a clear need for the judicial system to restore order amid the confusion triggered by these court decisions.
Furthermore, it’s interesting to note that Judge Brown, the same judge behind the invalidation of the map, had previously overturned a map for Galveston County. The Fifth Circuit managed to reverse that in Pettway v. Galveston County. The appointment of judges, especially in states with a veto system like Texas, can be fraught. In strongly partisan areas, the selection process for quality judges becomes complicated, which has implications for the overall judicial landscape.
As the deadline for submissions approaches, it remains imperative for the Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s mistake and reinstate the legal map established earlier. They need to put an end to practices that reinforce racial biases in elections. Given the urgency of upcoming midterm elections and the time limitations for legislative adjustments, swift action is essential. There should be no tolerance for racial discrimination in voting, nor should there be unjust judicial interference in the electoral process.
