DON’T FREAK OUT ABOUT TODAY’S SUPREME COURT STAY OF THE TEXAS REDISTRICTING INJUNCTION! (ORDER INCLUDED)
Wow, it’s deja vu all over again! It was just a couple of weeks ago that I told you to not let the Supreme Court’s temporary injunction in the Texas redistricting case bum you out. That was when Justice Alito stayed the lower court’s order, while he referred it to the other justices.
What happened today was *nothing* more than “We agree with Alito that it should be stayed *while we review the actual case*”. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT!!
Of course, it took them 20 pages to say it (and those 20 pages are included for Notes from the Front members).
Also of course, the media is having a heyday with it – because fear and stress = eyeballs and sales. And because a whole lot of “journalists” (and at this point I use the term loosely) don’t know squat about the law.
Here’s what I said a couple of weeks ago, it applies just as much today:
We’ve been together long enough now that most of you know that when the Supreme Court issues something from the emergency docket that it is PROCEDURAL ONLY, and is absolutely *not* based on the merits of the case.
It’s not at all surprising that Texas went directly to the Supreme Court, and asked for a stay of the District Court’s injunction enjoining them from using their Trump-ordered redistricting map, and asked the Supremes to review the case, given that they are *currently* considering the voting rights case out of Louisiana (Louisiana v. Callais), and that case is all about whether a section of the Voting Rights Act, specifically section 2, is constitutional, and the outcome of that case will apply to Texas too.
Section 2 basically says that it is a violation of the Voting Rights Act to deny or abridge someone’s right to vote on account of race or color, whether through imposing qualifications or imposing prerequisites.
Racial gerrymandering used to be legal. However the most recent case law says that racial gerrymandering is illegal, but *partisan* gerrymandering is not.
I am *not* an election or voting law attorney, so I’m not going to go into depth about this here. I’ll just say that the District Court said that Texas couldn’t use their shiny, slimy new map, one justice dissented-by-hissy-fit, and here we are.
And as you’ll note from the District Court opinion and order (also included for Notes members), at the end of extensive analysis the Judge says “Without an injunction, the racial minorities the Plaintiff Groups represent will be forced to be represented in Congress based on likely unconstitutional racial classifications for at least two years.”
So, yeah, it’s dueling racial classification allegations. And it’s complicated by “too close to an election to change” arguments. Which is why the District Court’s opinion and order is so long.
Anyways, even if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds Texas’ new maps and it gains them 5 seats, that will be offset by California’s new maps and then some. And remember, what’s legally good for the goose is legally good for the gander.
Notes from the Front members: the District Court opinion and order, and today’s Supreme Court stay, are in your inbox.
To protect myself from legal claims of impermissible public republication, and attacks by trolls, among other things, I don’t share documents I find publicly, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members, along with explanations and insights. You can join below for immediate access – it’s $5 a month and it’s fine to join and then cancel if you only want certain documents.
