Reply #1: Stakes sky high as court weighs how partisan process can get

[papau]

Among the issues in the Texas redistricting case:
Excessive gerrymandering: The Supreme Court has yet to set clear rules for how much boundary lines can be shifted for partisan reasons.
Mid-decade redistricting: The tradition of redrawing lines once per decade – rather than twice, as in Texas – isn't law, but many legal authorities assumed that was the only option.
Minority rights: Texas gained one black lawmaker under the new map, but in two other districts, the ability of black and Hispanic voters to control the outcome was watered down.
REDISTRICTING OPTIONS
The 2003 remap, following a court-produced remap completed in 2001 after lawmakers couldn't agree, was engineered by Tom DeLay, then House majority leader. This spring, the Supreme Court will hear four cases involving complaints by Democrats that the 2003 redesigned map is unconstitutional. Among possible outcomes, justices could:
•Affirm the lower court decision and accept the map as Texas Republicans redrew it in 2003.
•Throw out the 2003 DeLay map, forcing Texas to revert to the 2001 court-approved boundaries for the 2006 elections.
•Return the case to the Legislature, ordering it to redraw districts by some formula the court decides.
•Decide which specific districts violate the Voting Rights Act and order new primary elections in areas with reconfigured boundaries.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121305dntexredistricting.1138cc6.html

Justices take up Texas remap
Stakes sky high as court weighs how partisan process can get
09:53 PM CST on Monday, December 12, 2005
By ALLEN PUSEY and TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – In a move that could redefine the limits of partisan politics, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear four Texas cases challenging the redrawing of congressional districts two years ago by the Republican-dominated Legislature.

The court also agreed to expedite the four cases, filed by minorities, Democratic officeholders and others who say they have been disenfranchised by the GOP-drawn districts.

The court gave no reason for accepting the appeals, which involve a wide range of highly charged allegations: from "excessive partisan gerrymandering" and mid-decade redistricting to the dilution of minority votes. Just last year, the court ruled in a split vote that a Pennsylvania redistricting plan – though highly partisan – could not be resolved by the courts on a complaint that the process was simply too political.

Since then, the court has entered a transition, with a new chief justice on the bench and an associate justice about to be replaced. <snip>

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121305dntexredistricting.1138cc6.html