Term: 2011
Docket: 11-713
Rick Perry, Governor Of Texas, Et Al., Appellants v. Shannon Perez Et Al.
- Pro
11-713 PERRY V. PEREZ DECISION BELOW: Unreported order, opinion APPLICATIONS FOR STAY GRANTED, TREATED AS JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS AND PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED. CONSOLIDATED WITH 11-714 AND 11-715 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT GRANTED: 10 MINUTES FOR SOLICITOR GENERAL AS AMICUS CURIAE. JURISDICTION NOTED 12/9/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Texas Legislature enacted new electoral maps for the Texas House, Texas Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives in light of population changes in the 2010 census. Texas is actively seeking judicial preclearance of those maps under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The question presented is whether, while preclearance remains pending, another district court may order the use of judicially drawn "interim" electoral maps that give no deference to the State's duly-enacted maps, are not premised on any actual or likely violation of law, and are based on nothing more than the court's own notion of sound public policy and "the collective public good." LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 5:11-cv-360
In the case of Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al., Appellants v. Shannon Perez et al., 2011, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether redistricting plans drawn up by a federal district court in San Antonio for use in Texas's 2012 primary elections were appropriate. The state had been unable to secure preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for its own proposed redistricting maps due to ongoing litigation challenging their legality. The appellants argued that the interim maps did not adhere sufficiently closely to those proposed by legislature and thus constituted judicial overreach. In an unsigned opinion issued on January 20th, 2012, the Supreme Court sided with appellants and vacated the interim maps drawn up by District Court as they didn't pay enough deference to state’s policy judgments or reflect any legally relevant objections identified in pending lawsuit against State’s plan.
In the dissenting opinion for Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al., Appellants v. Shannon Perez et al., 2011 case, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in a matter that was already being handled by a lower court. The dissenting justices believed that the majority's decision to stay an interim redistricting plan put forth by a District Court in San Antonio undermined the authority and discretion of this lower court. They contended that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting such intervention from the Supreme Court as required under established legal principles governing stays pending appeal. Furthermore, they disagreed with their colleagues' interpretation of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act and its applicability to this case; arguing instead for deference to be given to Department Of Justice’s preclearance process which is aimed at preventing discriminatory voting practices.
