Term: 2005
Docket: 05-204
League Of United Latin American Citizens, Et Al. v. Rick Perry, Governor Of Texas, Et Al.
- Pro
05-204 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V. PERRY DECISION BELOW: (Unpublished, 6/9/2005) CONSOLIDATED WITH 05-254, 05-276, 05-439 FOR TWO HOURS ORAL ARGUMENT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 12/12/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the 2003 Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan (Plan 1 374C), adopted and developed using out-dated, inaccurate 2000 Census data and resulting in malapportioned districts, in violation of one person, one vote when measured against 2003 Census data, and when "the single-minded purpose of the Texas Legislature in enacting Plan 1374C was to gain partisan advantage" and when such purpose is realized, is an unconstitutional political gerrymander. 2. Whether proof of racially polarized voting is overcome by evidence of partisan affiliation of minority voters in the analysis of the second prong of Gingles in a minority vote dilution claim. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2:03-CV-354
The U.S. Supreme Court case League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al., 2005 revolved around the issue of gerrymandering in Texas' congressional districts following a controversial redistricting plan enacted by the state's Republican-controlled legislature in 2003. The plaintiffs argued that this plan violated the Voting Rights Act and infringed upon their constitutional rights by diluting minority voting power to favor Republicans unfairly. In a complex ruling with multiple opinions from different justices, the court largely upheld the redistricting but found one district (District 23) was racially gerrymandered and needed to be redrawn because it diluted Latino voting strength unlawfully.
In the dissenting opinion for League of United Latin American Citizens v. Rick Perry, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Texas's 2003 redistricting plan was a clear case of partisan gerrymandering and should be struck down as unconstitutional. He contended that the majority's decision to uphold most of the plan ignored evidence showing it was designed to favor Republicans and dilute Democratic voting power. Moreover, he criticized their reliance on a flawed legal standard which required proof that an entire political group had been disadvantaged rather than individual voters or districts. He also disagreed with their interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in relation to Latino voters in District 23, arguing they were indeed politically cohesive enough for protection under this law.
