Updates about ongoing redistricting litigation in the Lone Star State and coverage of election law more generally. This website's goal is to try to make sure the redistricting process and litigation over voting law is as transparent and accessible as possible to the public. Hopefully, it will be of some use to a broad range of interested parties, both lawyers and non-lawyers. Have questions, comments, suggestions, additional content, or a redistricting joke (or two)? Feel free to contact me: Michael Li, michael.li@mlilaw.com, 202.681.0641.
Posts I Like

Intervenors in the Texas voter ID case told the three-judge panel in Washington on Friday that they opposed efforts by the State of Texas to bifurcate the case in order to let the state to immediately appeal the panel’s denial of preclearance to the Supreme Court.

They told the court the state’s request for an immediate appeal was “inexplicabl[e]” given that the request had come only “[t]hree months after this Court’s August 30 decision denying preclearance.”  

Instead, the intervenors’ filing told the court that it would be a more efficient use of judicial resources - and less burdensome to the parties - to let the Supreme Court first decide the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the pending Shelby County case:

The Supreme Court’s affirmance of the circuit court’s decision in Shelby County, for example, may effectively end the preclearance dispute in this case given the extent to which Texas has invoked constitutional concerns in arguing for preclearance.  If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court in Shelby County does not affirm the circuit court’s decision, a direct appeal of this case to the Supreme Court of the preclearance decision would, most likely, constitute a waste of judicial resources.  

In a short filing Friday, lawyers for the Justice Department told the court that they did not oppose granting the relief sought by the court.

Here are the filings:

  1. texasredistricting posted this