Abbott v. Perez
 | |
| Abbott v. Perez | |
| Docket number: 17-586 | |
| Term: 2017-2018 | |
| Court: Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Important dates | |
| Argument: April 24, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch | |
Abbott v. Perez is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 25, 2018, which held that the district lines adopted by Texas in 2013 were valid and did not violate the Constitution or Voting Rights Act, except for District 90, which the court found to be an impermissible racial gerrymander. Oral argument in the case took place on April 24, 2018. The judgment under review came from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.[1][2]
This article contains background information on the redistricting process in Texas, details on the history of the case, and information on the questions presented to the Supreme Court.
Background
Redistricting process
- See also: Redistricting in Texas
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Texas' 36 United States Representatives and 181 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[3][4][5][6] In Texas, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the Texas State Legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.[7]
If the state legislature is unable to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, a backup commission must draw the lines. This backup commission, established in 1948, comprises the following members:[7]
- Lieutenant governor
- Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives
- Attorney general
- State comptroller
- Commissioner of the General Land Office
The Texas Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and "that they preserve whole counties when population mandates permit."[7]
Case history
On July 10, 2017, a federal trial addressing the constitutionality of the district maps adopted by the legislature in 2013 began, with Judges Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriguez (both of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas) and Judge Jerry Smith (of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) presiding. The maps' opponents alleged that the 2013 maps, like the original maps adopted in the wake of the 2010 United States Census, unconstitutionally diluted the voting rights of racial minority groups. State officials denied this, maintaining that the 2013 maps were substantially the same as those issued by a federal court in 2012. The trial continued through July 15, 2017.[8][9][10]
On August 15, 2017, Judges Smith, Garcia, and Rodriguez issued a unanimous ruling finding that the 2013 maps for congressional districts 27 and 35 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature. The judges ordered state officials to inform the court within three days of the state legislature's intent to draft and implement new remedial maps. State Representative Rafael Anchia (D), chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (a plaintiff in the case), supported the ruling: "Intentional discrimination is a bad habit for the Texas Legislature. With the seventh ruling of intentional discrimination since 2011, a federal court confirmed today that Texas congressional maps remain unconstitutional." In a statement, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced his plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States: "We appreciate that the panel ruled in favor of Texas on many issues in the case. But the portion of the ruling that went against Texas is puzzling considering the Legislature adopted the congressional map the same court itself adopted in 2012, and the Obama-era Department of Justice did not bring any claims against the map. We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to decide whether Texas had discriminatory intent when relying on the district court."[11][12][13]
On August 17, 2017, Paxton announced that he had initiated an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Paxton requested that the high court stay the lower court's ruling pending full review of the case.[14][15]
On August 24, 2017, Judges Smith, Garcia, and Rodriguez issued a unanimous ruling finding that the 2013 maps for the following state House districts had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature:[16]
- Districts 103, 104, and 105 in Dallas County
- Districts 32 and 34 in Nueces County
- Districts 54 and 55 in Bell County
- Districts 90 and 93 in Tarrant County
Paxton announced that he intended to appeal the decision.[17]
On August 28, 2017, Associate Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States stayed the district court's August 15 ruling on Texas' congressional district plan pending further review by the high court. On August 31, 2017, Alito issued a similar order on the district court's August 24 ruling on Texas' state House district plan. On September 12, 2017, the high court voted 5-4 to implement a full stay against both rulings pending progression of the state's appeal. According to The New York Times, the high court's order made it more likely that the 2018 election would be held using the existing district plans. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch formed the majority. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. On January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case, with oral argument scheduled for April 24, 2018. In March 2018, United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco requested that court permit him, on behalf of the federal government, to argue in support of Texas during oral argument on April 24, 2018.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
Appellants' arguments
Congressional maps
Attorneys for the appellants in the case (Greg Abbott, in his capacity as Texas' governor, Rolando Pablos, in his capacity as Texas' secretary of state, and the state of Texas) stated the following in the jurisdictional statement they filed with the Supreme Court of the United States on October 17, 2017 (italics included in the original source):[26]
| “ | Now, five years and three election cycles after ordering Texas to use Plan C235, that very same court has held that the Legislature engaged in intentional discrimination and racial gerrymandering when it enacted legislation adopting the court-ordered remedial plan as its own. The district court did not actually find that the 2013 Legislature deliberately enacted Plan C235 to harm minority voters or that it actually relied on race to sort voters into different districts. Nor could it. Instead, the district court faulted the Legislature for failing to remove the discriminatory 'taint' from the 2011 plan, even though the district court’s own order implementing Plan .C235 explained that the district court itself had already done exactly that, as instructed by this Court.[27] | ” |
Respondents' arguments
Congressional maps
Attorneys for the respondents in the case (Shannon Perez, et al.) stated the following in a motion to dismiss or affirm filed with the Supreme Court of the United States on November 20, 2017:[28]
| “ | While Texas takes umbrage at the district court’s examination of the State’s discriminatory intent in drawing district lines in 2011, the court’s order does not hinge on its intent finding. Rather, Districts 27 and 35 remain invalid regardless of the State’s intentional violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of Latino voters—the former as a discriminatory result in violation of § 2 and the latter as a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Texas’s failure to confront—let alone dispute—the district court’s detailed factual findings with respect to these infirmities is fatal to its appeal.[27] | ” |
Questions presented
| Questions presented:[29] 1. "Did the district court issue an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the Governor convened a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days?" |
Audio
- Audio of oral argument will be added here when it becomes available.
Transcript
- Transcript of oral argument:[30]
Outcome
Decision
On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 ruling reversing the decision of the district court with respect to all challenged districts except House District 90. Associate Justice Samuel Alito penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan.
Majority opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Associate Justice Samuel Alito noted that the district court applied an improper legal standard in striking down some of the challenged district maps:[31]
| “ | After reviewing the repealed 2011 plans, which had never been used, the court found that they were tainted by discriminatory intent and that the 2013 Legislature had not 'cured' that 'taint.' We now hold that the three-judge court committed a fundamental legal error. It was the challengers' burden to show that the 2013 Legislature acted with discriminatory intent when it enacted plans that the court itself had produced. The 2013 Legislature was not obligated to show that it had 'cured' the unlawful intent that the court attributed to the 2011 Legislature. Thus, the essential pillar of the three-judge court's reasoning was critically flawed."[27] | ” |
Alito explained that, upon applying a proper standard of intent, "there remain only four districts that were invalidated on alternative grounds." Three of these (Congressional District 27 and State House Districts 32 and 34) had been struck down by the district court as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Alito wrote that the maps' challengers had failed to satisfy the Gingles criteria applied when allegations of racial gerrymandering are made and thus reversed the district court's finding with respect to these districts.[31]
In the case of state House District 90, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the district court:[31]
| “ | Texas does not dispute that race was the predominant factor in the design of HD90, but it argues that this was permissible because it had 'good reasons to believe' that this was necessary to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.' ... Perhaps Texas could have made a stronger showing, but it is the State's burden to prove narrow tailoring, and it did not do so on the record before us. We hold that HD90 is an impermissible racial gerrymander. On remand, the District Court will have to consider what if any remedy is appropriate at this time.[27] | ” |
| —Associate Justice Samuel Alito | ||
Concurrence by Associate Justice Thomas
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned a brief concurrence, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, in which he wrote the following: "I adhere to my view that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not apply to redistricting. Thus, Section 2 cannot provide a basis for invalidating any district, and it cannot provide a justification for the racial gerrymander in House District 90. Because the Court correctly applies our precedents and reaches the same conclusion, I join its opinion in full."[31]
Dissent by Associate Justice Sotomayor
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor argued that the majority made three primary errors in its analysis:[31]
| “ | First, the majority disregards the strict limits of our appellate jurisdiction and reads into the District Court orders a nonexistent injunction to justify its premature intervention. Second, the majority indulges Texas’ distorted reading of the District Court’s meticulous orders, mistakenly faulting the court for supposedly shifting the burden of proof to the State to show that it cured the taint of past discrimination, all the while ignoring the clear language and unambiguous factual findings of the orders below. Third, the majority elides the standard of review that guides our resolution of the factual disputes in these appeals—indeed, mentioning it only in passing—and selectively parses through the facts. As a result of these errors, Texas is guaranteed continued use of much of its discriminatory maps.[27] | ” |
| —Sonia Sotomayor | ||
The opinion
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Abbott v. Perez," accessed April 4, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Sets Oral Argument in Texas Redistricting Cases for April 24," February 23, 2018
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- ↑ The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- ↑ Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 All About Redistricting, "Texas," accessed May 7, 2015
- ↑ The Texas Tribune, "With 2018 election looming, Texas back in court over political maps," July 10, 2017
- ↑ Dallas News, "With future elections in the balance, federal court to hear Texas redistricting case," July 10, 2017
- ↑ San Antonio Express-News, "Redistricting trial begins Monday in San Antonio," July 9, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan C235," August 15, 2017
- ↑ Houston Chronicle, "Court invalidates redrawn map for 2 Texas congressional districts," August 15, 2017
- ↑ Attorney General of Texas, "AG Paxton Reacts to Court’s Redistricting Ruling," August 15, 2017
- ↑ Texas Tribune, "With Supreme Court appeal, Texas wants to keep congressional map intact," August 18, 2017
- ↑ Attorney General of Texas, "AG Paxton Appeals Redistricting Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and Seeks Stay of District Court Order," August 18, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan H358," August 24, 2017
- ↑ Texas Tribune, "Texas House map must be redrawn, federal court says," August 24, 2017
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Justice Alito Stays Order to Redo Texas Congressional Districts Pending Further Briefing at Supreme Court," August 28, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Order," August 31, 2017
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court, on 5-4 Party Line Vote, Blocks Texas Redistricting Remedy for Now. What’s Next?" September 12, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court blocks ruling against Texas redistricting," September 12, 2017
- ↑ The New York Times, "Splitting 5-4, Justices Put Texas Redistricting on Hold," September 12, 2017
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Texas Redistricting Case," January 13, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Sets Oral Argument in Texas Redistricting Cases for April 24," accessed February 23, 2018
- ↑ Austin American-Statesman, "Trump lawyer seeks to defend Texas political maps at Supreme Court," March 26, 2018
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Jurisdictional Statement," October 17, 2017
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Motion to Dismiss or Affirm," November 20, 2017
- ↑ Oyez, "Abbott v. Perez," accessed April 4, 2018
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Oral Argument Transcript," April 24, 2018
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Opinion," June 25, 2018
| |||||||||||