A story entitled “Texas Redistricting Keeps Two Courts Busy” and blog highlights discuss how the two Texas redistricting cases are playing itself out in separate courts thousands of miles apart in both distance and interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. 

A three judge panel in San Antonio is looking at Section 2 issues while another three judge panel in the DC District Court is reviewing at Section 5 issues.  These are separate section of the Voting Rights Act.  The hearings involve many of the same issues but different standards and proof requirements.  Yes, a complicated mess. 

Based on questions and comments from the DC panel, that court is more sympathetic to Texas and skeptical of DOJ and their evolving retrogresion standard.  On the other hand, the San Antonio panel seems to be buying into the plaintiff’s overall claim of “fairness” in increasing Hispanic proportional representation and requiring the protection of coalition or influence districts as opposed to the prevailing legal standard on majority minority districts. 

So what to make of the headline “Texas redistricting map likely to be redrawn to benefit of Dems.”  Remarkably, this may turn out to be true.  The primary issue that divides these two courts is whether the law requires the protection of “coalition or influence districts.”  These are districts where minorities do not have enough voting population to elect a minority; however, together perhaps, a coalition of minorities groups or with white cross-over voters may be able to elect a minority white Democrat.  With the Bartlett and Ashcroft cases, there is deep skepticism at the Supreme Court concerning coalition or influence districts (as it quickly becomes the Democratic Party Protection Act). 

If the San Antonio court draws its own interim map (accepting plaintiff’s suggestions), this will unduly take the power of drawing maps from the overwhelming Republican legislature and provide a boon to Democrats, increasing their partisan representation in the Texas delegation by 3-4 seats.  While there may be an additional Hispanic seat in the mix, it is more likely that white Democrats would take the other seats and some Hispanic Republicans would lose.

Because of the high likelihood the Supreme Court will not endorse any mandate of coalitions districts, any interim map shouldn’t include these questionable coalition or influence districts.  To do so would dramatically alter any final map before the DC court and Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in on whether Texas had any duty to protect these type of seats.  The San Antonio panel has the real potential to become an activist court if they adopt controversial interim maps that may very well need to be corrected after the Supreme Court weighs in.