Supreme Court justices appear divided along ideological lines over Texas' redistricting fight. The high court heard oral arguments Tuesday over the state's attempt to revive Republican-drawn electoral maps thrown out by a lower court which ruled they nagatively impacting black and Hispanic voters.
State attorneys argue the Legislature adopted maps drawn up by a judge, and Gerald Treece at South Texas College of Law Houston agrees.
“I'm sort of siding with members of the court who are saying this case is here, this plan has been approved by the federal judges, so what's the big deal?” asks Treece.
“The time to challenge these maps hasn't passed legally, it's just passed as far as the 2018 election cycle goes, so I think whatever happens is not going to affect us in November.”
The 'big deal' according to state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, is the state is trying to delay the inevitable.
“Why are we hearing this case now when the three-judge panel in San Antonio ruled against the state preliminarily and found intentional discrimination? They haven't entered their final order yet, you've got to wait until they enter their final order before you appeal to the Supreme Court.”
“I hear from a lot of people that going in the system is already rigged because the lines are drawn in a very surgically precise fashion to have a certain outcome,” says Anchia. “What we're asking for is fair maps, or fair lines.”
Treece argues political gerrymandering is allowed under the law, the question is whether there was any racial discrimination when the maps were drawn.
He believes high court could wait on a ruling until a similar case out of Wisconsin is decided.