« Courts - New Castle City Court judge resigns | Main | Ind. Law - House rejects effort to strip DNR of authority over deer farms »

Monday, February 27, 2006

Law - Supreme Court to hear Texas redistricting case on Wednesday; other upcoming arguments

"Texas-size gerrymander case heads to high court" is the headline to a story today in the Chicago Tribune. Some quotes:

WASHINGTON -- It was among the more audacious political moves in memory: The state of Texas, prodded by Rep. Tom DeLay, redrew its political map in 2003 to send more Republicans to Congress, the first such "mid-decade" redistricting in the modern era.

The maneuver could hardly have been more successful. Six more Republicans were elected in 2004, making the Democrats' attempt to retake the House of Representatives this year all the more difficult. But there were negative consequences, too: DeLay has been indicted, admonished by the House ethics committee, forced to step down as majority leader and confronted with the prospect of losing his seat--all because of actions related to the redistricting.

Now the Supreme Court is preparing to deliver the final word on Texas' action. In a special two-hour session Wednesday, the court will consider whether Texas impermissibly redistricted for solely partisan reasons and whether it illegally dismantled black and Latino districts. A ruling is expected later this year.

The fight is unfolding against the backdrop of dramatically fewer competitive House races across the country. And the events in Texas seem to reflect a political culture that is becoming more partisan and polarized. * * *

The episode has become part of the larger national debate over politics and corruption, in which DeLay is a central figure. After the Texas redistricting, the House ethics committee chastised DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down the Democratic lawmakers when they fled. Then DeLay was indicted for alleged campaign finance violations related to his push to elect more Republicans to the Legislature, which set the stage for the redistricting.

A lower court has upheld the new Texas map. Should the Supreme Court agree, it would encourage other legislatures to redistrict whenever a party seizes the upper hand, said Paul Smith of the Chicago-based law firm Jenner & Block, who is arguing the case for the Democrats.

"If we are to lose this case, we will have a profoundly anti-democratic result," Smith said.

Few are willing to predict which way the court will go.

"It's a big wild card," said Storey, of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The wise answer is that it will be some kind of a close decision that can break either way and will be pretty narrowly tailored to deal with the Texas episode. I think you flip a coin."

For the briefs in the Texas "case" (it is actually four cases) check here on the ABA site. There is a lot of reading there! (See also these ILB entries from Dec. 12th and 15th, 2005, that will allow you to do a lot of listening!).

Tax incentives. On the same page, you'll find the briefs for the Ohio tax incentives challenge discussed at length in this ILB entry this weekend.

Confrontation clause. Also on the same page are the briefs for an argument set for Monday, March 20th. This is Hammon v. Indiana, an Indiana case involving the hearsay/confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution. See these ILB entries from Nov. 14, 2005 Nov. 3, 2005, and Nov. 2, 2005.

Even more. Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times reports "High Court to Take Up Pressing Issues This Week." She has a good discussion of the Vermont campaign finance case being heard this week. See these two ILB entries (one and two) from Sept. 27th, 2005 for background. Terre Haute attorney James Bopp, Jr. will be arguing on behalf of the Republican party.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 27, 2006 05:18 PM
Posted to General Law Related