TEXAS REDISTRICTING
MALC chair, Trey Martinez Fischer:
“This morning the Supreme Court of the United States clearly rejected the State of Texas’ position regarding the interim use of legislative maps pending the pre-clearance process. Instead the Court remanded the case back to the San Antonio Court with guidance on how to proceed. The Court was clear in its order that lower courts cannot incorporate any state maps with legal defects.
It is not a stretch to say that Texas’ enacted maps are riddled with legal deficiencies and we look forward to drawing a better interim map now that we know the San Antonio court can rely on the evidence presented at trial that Texas’ maps are discriminatory both in purpose and effect.”
MALDEF’s Nina Perales:
“Today’s decision affirms the critical role of the federal Voting Rights Act in protecting minority voters. The Court rejected the request by Texas in this appeal to be allowed to implement its redistricting plans despite the fact that the plans have not been precleared under the Voting Rights Act. We believe the plans discriminate against Latino voters and are pleased that the Supreme Court refused to allow Texas to proceed with its discriminatory redistricting plans. We look forward to further proceedings in the federal court in Texas to again secure fair interim maps for all Texans.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott:
“The Texas Attorney General’s Office is committed to ensuring that Texas elections are conducted using legally enacted redistricting maps. No court has, at any time, found anything unlawful about the redistricting maps passed by the Texas Legislature. It is judicial activism at its worst for judges to draw redistricting maps of their own choosing despite no finding of wrongdoing by the State of Texas. The court-drawn maps, which give no deference to Texas’ duly enacted legislative plans, cannot be allowed to stand.”
State Senator Wendy Davis:
“On behalf of the thousands of voters for whom we are fighting, we are delighted that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that adjustments should be made where the San Antonio court has found the likelihood of Section 2 violations or a “reasonable probability” of Section 5 violations, which was exactly how the San Antonio panel of judges drew the current interim maps. The interim Senate map kept districts in place as they were drawn by the Legislature, except in Senate District 10 where the San Antonio court redrew the district I represent because there are likely violations of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”
Matt Angle, Democratic strategist:
“Essentially, the Supreme Court took a middle-ground approach. The Court refused the request by Texas Republicans to use their un-precleared plans. At the same time, it will not allow the use of the court-drawn interim plans either.
The High Court made clear that when drawing interim redistricting plans, a lower court must incorporate features of the enacted maps except where it can find and justify changes based on certain or likely legal violations. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision would necessarily eliminate any of the minority opportunity districts included in the court-ordered interim map. Rather, the High Court determined that these districts should have been better justified and explained.”
Steve Munisteri, chair of the Republican Party of Texas
“I am hopeful that the Western District three-judge panel will issue new maps in time for us to maintain our current April 3rd primary. Until the panel issues new orders, we will not know how many legislative districts will likely be Republican and how many will be Democrat. Thus, any conclusion as to the overall result of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court will have to be withheld until that time. In the meantime, the RPT will continue to advocate for an election schedule that will allow an early April primary.”
