All-but concluding the matter, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with an appeals court’s ruling upholding Tom DeLay’s insane re-redistricting plan in Texas. You might recall that the matter sparked months of controversy — and two Democratic out-of-state trips — in the Lone Star state last summer.
This will probably wrap up the scandal once and for all. A terrible precedent has been set, DeLay will get what he wants, and the House GOP caucus is about to grow by six seats. I hate it when the bad guys win.
Let’s not forget that the ruling doesn’t mean DeLay was right to re-redraw the lines of the congressional district map, only that the Republicans were motivated by a partisan cause, not a discriminatory one. That doesn’t make it right, only legal.
Indeed, when the 5th Circuit ruled against the Dems in January, the court seemed to appreciate — and implicitly concede — most of the Dems’ arguments. The 5th Circuit said its decision was based purely on the fact that the judges didn’t see an inconsistency between the newly-drawn map and the Voting Rights Act. “We decide only the legality of [the plan], not its wisdom,” the decision said.
In fact, far from endorsing such a ridiculous policy, the three-judge panel criticized the effort as “a political product from start to finish.” The ruling even encouraged Congress to prohibit states from drawing new maps mid-decade as Texas had done. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
As the Houston Chronicle explained at the time:
“Lawyers for the state argued that the systematic dilution of minority voting strength is not illegal if its aim is partisan advantage rather than racial discrimination,” the Chronicle noted. “The federal judges agreed, but that cynical assertion resembles the idea that it is OK to trample on people for personal gain as long as you don’t look down to see what’s happening. It might be legal, but it is not just.”
There’s only one more thing to clear up.
Different outlets have reported yesterday’s news from the Supreme Court in different ways. Some were right, but some were wrong and I wanted to clear up why.
The AP, for example, said the high court “refused…to consider” the case. The Washington Post, meanwhile, said the Supreme Court “upheld [the] lower court ruling.” Well, which is it? Did the Supremes uphold a ruling or refuse to hear the case?
The Post got it right; the AP didn’t.
The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a lower court ruling that allowed a controversial redistricting plan in Texas, effectively handing Republicans a victory in their efforts to maintain a GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the November elections.
The high court turns down 98% of the cases it is asked to hear. Routinely, every Monday it’s in session, the Supreme Court lists pages upon pages of cases it won’t consider. When this happens, the justices aren’t commenting on the merits of a case, only that they won’t hear the controversy.
That is not, however, what happened yesterday. In the Texas case, the Supreme Court announced that the “judgment [of the appeals’ court] is affirmed.” In other words, on the merits, the justices upheld the lower court ruling, without going to the trouble of granting cert and hearing arguments.
Near as I can tell, the Post was one of the only papers to get it right.