League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
| League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 1, 2006 Decided June 28, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et. all |
| Docket nos. | 05-204 |
| Citations | 548 U.S. 399 (more)
2006 U.S. LEXIS ___
|
| Prior history | Denying relief, Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451 (E.D. Tex. 2004); vacating and remanding for reconsideration, Henderson v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 351 (2004) (mem.); denying relief, 399 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Tex. 2005). |
| Subsequent history | Remedial order, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 457 F. Supp. 2d 716 (E.D. Tex. 2006). |
| Holding | |
| Texas's redrawing of District 23’s lines amounts to vote dilution violative of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while other newly created districts remain constitutional. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy (in part), joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (Parts II-A & III); Roberts, Alito (Parts I & IV); Souter, Ginsburg (Part II-D) |
| Concur/dissent | Roberts, joined by Alito |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Breyer (Parts I, II) |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas; Roberts, Alito (Part III) |
| Concur/dissent | Souter, joined by Ginsburg |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| Voting Rights Act of 1965, U.S. Constitution Amendment XV | |
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.
The opinion requires lawmakers to adjust Congressional district boundaries in comport with the Court's ruling, though the ruling does not threaten Republican gains as a result of the redistricting in Texas. The Court also declined to resolve a dispute over whether partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions.
After the 2000 United States Census Democrats and Republicans in the Texas Legislature could not reach an agreement on redistricting and a new plan had to be drawn by a federal three-judge court made up of U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, and U.S. District Judges John H. Hannah, Jr. and T. John Ward. When Tom DeLay and his Texans for a Republican Majority helped Republicans win total control of the state in the 2002 election, however, they sought to replace the court’s redistricting plan. Democratic lawmakers known as the Killer Ds and the Texas Eleven fled the state to deny the legislature of a quorum, but the clerk of the Texas House of Representatives issued arrest warrants for the legislators and DeLay had federal agencies track their movements. Governor Rick Perry called three special sessions and ultimately passed the new plan. Career staff at the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division advised the plan failed preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but were overruled by acting Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman.
...
Wikipedia