Gerrymandering has been an inherent part of American politics since the country’s founding. Named for Elbridge Gerry, a founding father and Vice President under James Madison, the practice has sparked controversy and debate throughout history. For years, those on the left tried to abolish partisan gerrymandering, a contentious issue that swirled around the Supreme Court, especially during Justice Anthony Kennedy’s tenure. It wasn’t until President Trump appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh that the Court solidified its stance. In the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court established that while race-based gerrymandering is prohibited, drawing maps based on partisanship is permissible.
Earlier this year, Texas leveraged this ruling to create a new congressional map. However, a three-judge district court panel recently invalidated that map. They temporarily reinstated the 2021 map for the upcoming midterm elections, a move that could cost the Republican Party five vital seats in the House. The ruling cited dilution of minority votes, ignoring the fact that legislators did not advocate for racial discrimination when drafting the new map.
A swift response from Texas officials followed, with Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton appealing to the Supreme Court. The ruling in question was authored by Judge Jeffrey Brown, who was appointed by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz in 2019. Judge Jerry Smith, a member of the panel, dissented, advocating for a more measured approach.
The stakes are high, and the Court must act promptly to address this ruling. The notion that courts have misinterpreted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for decades cannot be overlooked. The current setup has led to what some call DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) districts—where the existence of majority-minority districts requires racially discriminatory practices in redistricting. The Court is now reevaluating this statute in the Louisiana v. Callais case.
During oral arguments in Callais, Kavanaugh raised key questions about the historical context of these districting approaches, suggesting that perhaps such schemes should have never been accepted in the first place, especially in the wake of segregation. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch echoed similar sentiments during their questioning. A ruling from the Court here could significantly shift the landscape of redistricting—not just in Texas, but nationwide.
If the justices decide to limit the Voting Rights Act’s scope regarding mandatory majority-minority districts, it would be illogical for Texas to adhere to a lower court ruling that could be deemed unconstitutional if the Court later rules otherwise. The principles established in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) emphasize that federal courts typically should not intervene in election processes as they approach. This precedent supports a delay in enforcing the lower court’s ruling.
The timeline is especially tight. With Texas primaries scheduled for early March and absentee voting commencing shortly before, candidates are already aligning their campaigns with the newly drawn congressional maps. Disruption at this juncture could create extensive chaos, risking accurate representation and a well-organized election process.
It’s apparent that Judge Brown’s prior rulings have not stood up when faced with broader judicial scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit previously overturned a decision he made regarding Galveston County, further raising concerns about his approach. The appointment process for district judges, particularly in blue states, complicates the selection of qualified nominees, but the expectation remains for sound judicial decisions. This reliance on senator recommendations, often clouded by political bias, underscores the need for thorough vetting of judicial candidates.
The urgency is clear. With impending deadlines looming, the Supreme Court must act decisively. A stay of the recent ruling would allow the lawful congressional map, passed and signed earlier this year, to remain. The Court must also reevaluate the continuation of DEI districts, reaffirming the principles of equality in voting rights without racial bias. There should be no room for judicial interference in the electoral process. The justices must take swift action to restore order and uphold the integrity of elections in Texas and across the nation.
"*" indicates required fields
