Census

An official count of the population of a particular area, such as a district, state, or nation.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry

The 132-page plurality opinion in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, No.05-204, 548 U.S. ____ (2006) was delivered at the end of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005–2006 session. Three other related cases, on appeal from the same court (the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) were consolidated and decided together with this one. The subject matter of the cases involved congressional redistricting plans and allegations of impermissible political gerrymandering in Texas. Precisely, the high court ruled that only one of the challenged new voting districts created by the 2003 Texas Redistricting Plan violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it amounted to vote dilution. The Supreme Court further ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim of actionable partisan gerrymandering.

As background, Texas had been a Democratic stronghold for years, but began to shift after the 1960s. By the 1990s, the Republicans had won every statewide race, although they did not gain a majority in the state's legislature until the 2002 elections.

A census taken every ten years helps to redistrict states by accounting for population changes. Following the 1990 census, Texas was allotted three additional seats for its congressional delegation. Additionally, the Republican Party had received 47 percent of the 1990 statewide vote. Sensing a change in the air, the Democratic-controlled state legislature attempted to draw a new congressional redistricting plan that would favor Democratic candidates. A Republican challenge on constitutional grounds failed.

By the time of the 2000 census, the Republicans controlled the governorship (George W. Bush) and the state senate. The 2000 census authorized two additional seats for the Texas congressional delegation. The Texas legislature could not agree on a new redistricting plan and requested a federal court to devise a plan. The three-judge federal district court drew Plan 1151C, creating two new seats in high-growth areas, following county and voting precinct lines, and avoiding the pairing of incumbents. Under this independent plan, the 2002 congressional elections resulted in a 17-15 Democratic majority in the Texas congressional delegation. This, however, did not reflect the 59 percent to 40 percent wins by Republicans for statewide offices.

However, by 2003, Texas Republicans had gained control of both legislative houses and, after contentious partisan struggle, the legislature enacted a new congressional districting map, Plan 1374C. The 2004 elections resulted in Republicans winning 21 of the 32 congressional seats and holding 58 percent of statewide offices.

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), along with a group of Democrats challenged Plan 1374C, filed suit claiming that the Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, in its guarantee that "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Since some forms of partisan gerrymandering are legal, the GI Forum of Texas, an advocate for the Hispanic community, filed a separate suit alleging that the Plan served to dilute minority voices and discriminate against Hispanics, making it illegal under §2 of the Voting Rights Act. Several other statutory and constitutional violations were alleged, in four separate suits. The suits were consolidated by the federal district court.

In 2004, the district court entered judgment for the state, but the Supreme Court ultimately vacated and remanded for consideration under Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S.267. (In that case, the Court held that a Pennsylvania redistricting need not be set aside simply because it constituted political gerrymandering.) On remand, the district court, perceiving its review on remand limited to questions of political gerrymandering, again rejected plaintiffs' claims and found for the state.

On direct appeal from that court, plaintiffs argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that they had raised more issues than mere partisan gerrymandering. Several of the newly-created voting districts were challenged as violative of §2 of the Voting Rights Act. States potentially violate §2 "if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election … are not [as] equally open to … members of [a racial group as they are to] other members of the electorate." 42 USC 1973(b). A subsequent Court decision, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, identified three threshold conditions for establishing §2 violations: (1) the racial group must be "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district"; (2) the group must be "politically cohesive"; and (3) the white majority must "vot[e] sufficiently as a bloc to enable it … usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." The legislative history identified other factors to consider, once all three threshold requirements were met, when reviewing the Act's "totality of circumstances" standard.

Applying established precedent to the present case(s), the Supreme Court found that only District 23 satisfied all three Gingles requirements. The Court's analysis was lengthy and convoluted.

Other findings and holdings of the Court constituted plurality opinions extracted from the separate justices. A 7-2 majority held that mid-decade redistricting did not create an inference of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, thereby demanding less other proof of unconstitutionality than would be required in a conventional decade (census) redistricting. But an unanimous Court ruled that mid-decade redistricting was not a violation of the one-person, one-vote principle. At least seven justices held that decennial census figures used in mid-decade redistricting did not violate the one-person, one-vote principle.

Six justices found that District 23, involving Latino voters in Laredo, was invalid under the Voting Rights Act. A 5-3 split (one justice not addressing the issue) found that District 24, involving African-American voters in Dallas-Fort Worth, was not invalid under the Voting Rights Act.

There was no clear majority, and the Court was well-divided, on the question of whether there is now a judicially manageable standard for evaluating claims of partisan gerrymandering. Four justices believe there is; two justices thought not; Justice Kennedy thought not yet, maybe never; two justices did not address this question.