User talk:Pbarnes

Abbott v. Perez
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 24, 2018 Decided June 25, 2018
Full case name	Abbott v. Perez
Docket no.	17-586
Citations	585 U.S. ___ (more) 138 S. Ct. 2305; 201 L. Ed. 2d 714
Case history
Prior	Perez v. Abbott, 267 F. Supp. 3d 750 (W.D. Tex. 2017); 274 F. Supp. 3d 624 (W.D. Tex. 2017)
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
Majority	Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch
Concurrence	Thomas, joined by Gorsuch
Dissent	Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the redistricting of the state of Texas following the 2010 Census results.

Background

As a result of the 2010 United States Census, the state of Texas was found to have gained more than four million new residents, many of them of Latino or African-American heritage. This granted Texas four additional seats in the United States House of Representatives, requiring the state to redraw both its congressional and legislative districts to incorporate these four new seats. At this time, the Texas state government was controlled by the Republican Party. Initial redistricting maps were completed by the state legislature by 2011, and sent to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for preclearance as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). While the District Court reviewed the maps, some Texas citizens believed that the redistricting diluted the minority votes and used unconstitutional racial gerrymandering to define the new districts, violating both Section 2 of the VRA, and filed a separate suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Texas District court heard arguments in this case, but held off on ruling until the preclearance was completed. However, with the 2012 elections nearing, the D.C. District Court recognized they would not be able to complete the preclearance in time. The Texas District Court, using proposals from parties in the current Section 2 case, developed the three interim district plans for the state's congressional and legislative districts by November 2011.

The state, defending its maps, issued an emergency request to the Texas Supreme Court to reject the District Court maps. The Supreme Court agreed to the emergency request, and on January 20, 2012, vacated the maps developed by the District Court and instructed them to draw up new maps. The District Court used the state-derived maps as a starting point and issued their new maps by February 2012. Separately, the D.C. District Court continued the evaluation of the redistricting maps, and ruled that all three redistricting maps provided by the state for preclearance did not meet the requirements for Section 5 of the VRA by August 2012. The judges determined that the state had not been able to prove that the redistricting plan was developed without intentional discrimination. Due to timing with the 2012 elections to be held in November, Texas continued to use the Texas District Court-derived maps.

During these events, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that the means of which states were determined to have preclearence of voter-related laws was unconstitutional, eliminating the need for Texas to seek preclearance of their maps. The state, with only minor changes, adopted all three maps from the District Court as the permanent maps in June 2013.

The original suit in the Texas District Court continued, with petitioners seeking to also amend the 2013 redistricting maps as part of their complaints, as to prevent these maps to be used in the next set of elections. This case became protracted in the District Court, but ultimately the court issued its ruling in August 2017. It ruled that the 2011 redistricting map violated either the VRA or the Constitution or a combination of both, and because the state used the maps proposed by Texas District Court based on the original state maps following the Supreme Court ruling as the basis for the 2013 redistricting, that these were also similarly flawed. The court ordered that the Texas Governor call a special meeting of legislators to redraw the maps in a timely manner, but the state instead turned to the Supreme Court to appeal the Texas District Court's opinion, as well as to freeze the District Court's order to redraw the maps due to nearness of the 2018 elections. In a 5–4 decision split between the conservative and liberal Justices, the Supreme Court agreed in September 2017 to freeze the redistricting order, and agreed to hear the case in January 2018.

Supreme Court

The case presented at the Supreme Court combines two separate rulings issued by the Texas District Court on the redistricting maps. The state in their petition asked on several issues, including whether the 2013 maps, adopted from those presented by the Texas District Court, could be considered unconstitutional, whether the District Court had ruled appropriately in challenging specific district lines identified in the 2013 maps, and whether the District Court had authority to demand the rapid redistricting session. The Court itself further considered if they had jurisdiction on the case, given that their action to freeze the District Court's ruling could have been seen as premature. Oral arguments were heard on April 24, 2018, with observers stating that the judges appeared to be split along conservative and liberal lines. The decision was issued on June 25, 2018.

Opinion of the Court

In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito the Court upheld the current redistricting maps as valid districts, outside of one district, Texas House District 90 near Fort Worth, which the court found was an "impermissible racial gerrymander", remanding the case to lower courts to correct the redistricting to eliminate the racial gerrymandering.

Concurrence and Dissent

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued an concurrence opinion in which they asserted that redistricting is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. On behalf of the court's four liberals Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the conservative court majority. The majority's "disregard for both precedent and fact comes at serious costs to our democracy," she wrote in 46-page dissent. "It means that after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas ... will continue to be underrepresented in the political process."

External links

• Text of Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) is available from: Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  Supreme Court (slip opinion)