Over a million Texans were not considered when current congressional district lines were drawn.
UT law professors, Travis County and LULAC are arguing that the state's 2003 redistricting plan violates "one person, one vote." As the minority populations have shifted and changed, those groups are no longer accurately represented by the 2000 Census data. Between 2000 and 2003, the overall population of Texas grew approximately 6 percent, adding 1.2 million people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Late Friday afternoon, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott released a series of briefs in the state redistricting case. Among them was the response to an amicus brief filed by University law professors arguing that the 2003 mid-decade redistricting did not take into account the "phenomenal growth" that occurred in Texas between 2000 and 2003.
A three-judge panel heard the redistricting case in the summer of 2003, and decided in January in favor of the state. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court vacated the judgement and sent the case back to Texas to be heard in light of a recent Pennsylvania case involving partisan gerrymandering.
Lucas Powe, a University law professor, will argue the case in Dallas tomorrow.
"We will argue that in relying on the 2000 census, the state used outmoded data in deciding where to draw the districts," Powe said.
The complaint argues the state did not make a "good faith effort" to take those population shifts into account when the map was redrawn in 2003.
The state's response argues that a "one person-one vote" argument is "an undisguised attempt at a back door judicial prohibition on 'mid-decade' redistricting" and that the Court has already concluded it was both legal and permissible. Decennial census data is considered "presumptively valid for redistricting," absent a substantial showing to the contrary. The state further contended that the claim failed because the plaintiffs failed to point out any actual equal-population violation despite using outdated Census data.
The question of the burden of proof is still foggy. It is unclear as to who will be incumbered with the task of proving part of the population has been left without representation as the new Texas hearing unfolds, said Powe.
"There will be some burden shifting going on," said Powe. "We don't know who the burden will fall on but whomever it is will lose."
Despite the outcome of the Texas trial it is likely the case will not stop there, as the unsuccessful party is expected to appeal the case back to the Supreme Court, Powe said.
In deciding to send the case back to Texas, the Supreme Court is allowing for the outcome of the 2004 election to be considered as part of the evidence. The congressional election saw five top Texas Democratic congressmen unseated as part of a redistricting plan masterminded by Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Powe feels the results of the election are neutral, due to the fact the plaintiffs' argument "doesn't rest on the issue of partisanship."
"Our argument is grounded in Supreme Court jurisprudence, not the outcome of the congressional elections," Powe said.
Be the first to comment on this article!