Justices revise part of Texas redistricting

updated 7:45 p.m. ET June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON - A fractured Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states are free to redraw congressional districts whenever they want, largely blessing Tom DeLay’s bitterly contested handiwork in Texas and the gains it gave national Republicans.

With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy playing the role of majority maker, the court ruled the 2003 Texas plan violated the rights of Hispanics in the area around Laredo and ordered a lower court to review that part of the case.

But the justices imposed no timetable, and it was not clear whether Democrats would be able to win any changes in the Republican-drafted plan before the November elections.

Additionally, the justices rejected a claim that Texas Republicans had violated the rights of black voters by breaking up a congressional district in the area around Fort Worth.

And they ruled more broadly that the Constitution does not bar states from redrawing political lines when one party or the other senses an advantage.

“With respect to a mid-decade redistricting to change districts drawn earlier in conformance with a decennial census, the Constitution and Congress state no explicit prohibition,” Kennedy wrote.

Only 2 claim excessive partisanship
The case prompted six of the court’s nine justices to issue opinions. Kennedy’s was the pivotal one, though.

Only two justices, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, said the mid-decade redistricting showed that the Texas lawmakers were guilty of excessive partisanship.

NBC VIDEO Russert on politics June 28: NBC's Tim Russert talks with Brian Williams about the political implications of the Supreme Court ruling on redistricting. Nightly News

“By taking an action for the sole purpose of advantaging Republicans and disadvantaging Democrats, the state of Texas violated its constitutional obligation to govern impartially,” Stevens wrote in dissent.

The rulings on the challenges to the rights of Hispanics and blacks were narrower, 5-4, Kennedy in the majority on each.

Angela Hale, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general, said, “The timeline and the procedure for redrawing the only district requiring further action will be addressed by the three-judge federal district court at a hearing in the near future.”

Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the organization was prepared to go to court next week to press its claim that the Texas redistricting violated the voting rights of Hispanics.

Long-term consequences unclear
If the ruling’s impact on the 2006 elections was unclear, so, too, the longer-term consequences.

Under the Constitution, states are required to adjust their congressional district lines to account for population shifts following the national census, held every decade.

The ruling freed states to readjust the lines more frequently — potentially whenever political power shifts — so long as they do not run afoul of the Voting Rights Act or other laws designed to protect the right to vote.

Even so, Richard Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School, said he doubted there would be a rush to change. “Some people are predicting a rash of mid-decade redistricting. I am skeptical,” he said.

With the House narrowly divided, both parties have shown interest in following the lead set by the GOP in Texas.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

House Dems to tax rich for health care Obama lands in Ghana after meeting pope NYT: Ghana visit points to Africa's instability Sept. may bring push for Iran sanctions Post-9/11 surveillance went beyond wiretapping Newsweek: How Obama looked past the Kremlin Obama's visit to fort a 'full-circle experience' Mock exercises prepare Sotomayor for hearings Obama plane incident could have been disaster Lawmaker: Panetta terminated secret program Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: