TEXAS REDISTRICTING & ELECTION LAW

The opinion is here and the final judgment is here.  Analysis to follow below.

ANALYSIS:

* Opinion appears to be a sweeping win for DOJ and groups opposing the state’s redistricting maps.  Unanimous except (1) that Judge Griffith dissents with respect to finding of retrogression in treatment of CD-25 (the current Lloyd Doggett seat) and (2) that Judge Collyer did not join in the portion of the opinion relating to retrogression in the congressional map as a whole.

* Court finds that the State of Texas failed to show an absence of discriminatory purpose in the redrawing of SD-10.  The court, however, rejects the contention that SD-10 is an ability to elect district since Wendy Davis was the only minority-preferred candidate to win the district and “a single victory is not the more exacting evidence needed for a coalition district.”

* On congressional map, court finds retrogression in CD-23, CD-25, and CD-27 in state’s enacted plan.  On CD-25, Judge Collyer and Judge Howell find the existence of an effective tri-ethnic coalition in CD-25: “The record demostrates that no single group in CD-25’s try-ethnic coalition is sufficient numerous to elect its candidate alone, but together the coalition consistently wins general elections in the district.”

* On state house map, court finds retrogression in HD-33 (Nueces), HD-35 (South Texas), HD-117 (Bexar), and HD 149 (Harris).  The panel does not reach the question of discriminatory intent but “note[s] the record evidence causes concern” and “strongly suggests that the retrogressive effect we have found may not have been accidental.”

____

UPDATE:

Errata from panel here.