Term: 2017
Docket: 17-586
Abbott v. Perez
- Pro
17-586 ABBOTT V. PEREZ DECISION BELOW: 2017 WL 3495922 CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-626 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. JURISDICTION POSTPONED 1/12/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas' duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the Governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days. 2. Whether the Texas Legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect. 3. Whether the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region; 4. Whether the Legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: SA-11-CV-360
The case of Abbott v. Perez involved a dispute over the legality and constitutionality of Texas' redistricting plan, which was accused of being racially discriminatory against Hispanic voters. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas in a 5-4 decision, stating that the lower court had erred when it invalidated two congressional districts and seven state house districts for alleged racial gerrymandering. The majority opinion held that there was not enough evidence to prove that the maps were drawn with discriminatory intent or resulted in significant dilution of minority voting power. However, one state house district (HD90) was found to be an impermissible racial gerrymander due to its use as a Latino opportunity district despite having insufficient eligible Latino voters.
In the dissenting opinion for Abbott v. Perez, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision ignored substantial evidence of racial discrimination in Texas' redistricting plans and undermined the Voting Rights Act. She contended that by ignoring this evidence, the court was allowing states to continue discriminatory practices with impunity. The justice also criticized her colleagues for not applying a standard of "clear error" when reviewing lower court decisions on matters like these, which she believed led them to overlook key facts about Texas' intent behind its district maps. Furthermore, she expressed concern over how this ruling could discourage future challenges against racially discriminatory voting laws due to increased difficulty in proving intentional discrimination.
