The Quorum Report reports:
FEDERAL PANEL RULES IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ON REDISTRICTING
Next step would be a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff Attorney Gerry Hebert has confirmed a federal three-judge panel has ruled in favor of the state in the Texas redistricting case, Henderson v Perry. The US Supreme Court remanded the case back to the three-judge panel last October, asking them to reconsider their decision in light of the recent Vieth case before the Supreme Court, which took up the broader issue of partisan gerrymandering.
Nothing on this that I can find in Google News, so check back later for an update when this hits the wires. As I wrote when the case was first sent back for review, I don’t believe there was anything the court could do now to offer genuine redress if they felt it was warranted. Once the ousted Democrats lost the power of incumbency, they would become underdogs to ever win their seats back, even (in my opinion) with the original configuration of their districts. In short, this changes nothing and would have changed nothing had the decision gone the other way. What we have now is reality, and we have to deal with it.
(Thanks to Kimberly for tipping me to this.)
UPDATE: Here’s the Chron coverage. There’ll be an appeal back to the Supreme Court, but that has the feel of a formality to me. Note, however, that the federal court says there’s no standard for what constitutes “excessively partisan” redistricting. I have to think it’d take federal legislation for there to be a standard. I can’t see that happening any time soon.
R.G. Rafcliffe has coverage for the Chronicle today (although it’s a bit meandering — Harvey Rice’s court reporting is far preferable, but I guess this is Ratcliffe’s beat).
Actually, John Tanner (Tennesse) introduced a bill about standards in redistricting.
Not to be pessimistic, but I wonder how far it will go.
Once the ousted Democrats lost the power of incumbency, they would become underdogs to ever win their seats back, even (in my opinion) with the original configuration of their districts. In short, this changes nothing and would have changed nothing had the decision gone the other way.
Hmmmm? Maybe some of them. But, DFW would likely get a Dem back in the 24, and Bonilla would become vulnerable again.