Saturday, May 28, 2016
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search

Preview the Paper Preview the Paper

Preview this week's Paper
A limited number of pages are displayed in this preview.
Preview this Week’s Issue ›
Subscribe Today ›

Lost & Found

VideoLost: German mix, male, tip of one ear missing, micro chipped, last seen with blue collar and blue bone tag with name and house number. Call if found, 830-779-2512.
*Includes FREE photo online!
Reward! Lost: Fox Terrier, white and orange female, named Sara, no collar, went missing May 1, near F.M. 775 and 3432. Call Lindsay at 210-284-0094.
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

Insurance sales rep., no license necessary, will provide all training, compensation includes salary plus commission, full medical benefits, and 401K, transportation required, goal oriented. Call Frank Castillo at 210-900-8140.
Full-time bartender needed at Olmos Country Corner Store, 9071 FM 467. Call Rick at 210-687-0108.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos

Video Vault ›
Heritage ParkBudget BlindsPursch with auto package

Breaking News

Abbott Seeks Emergency Stay on Redistricting

E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story
November 28, 2011, 12:49pm
1,851 views | 4 comments

AUSTIN -- Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant an emergency stay to stop the federal district court in San Antonio from imposing unlawful redistricting maps upon the State of Texas. The State’s appeal requests that the Supreme Court review the redistricting case on an expedited basis, reverse the federal district court’s unlawful decision and prohibit the district court’s interim map from being implemented.

“Today’s appeal emphasizes that no court has, at any time, found anything unlawful about the redistricting maps passed by the Texas Legislature,” Attorney General Abbott said. “It is judicial activism at its worst for judges to draw redistricting maps of their own choosing despite no finding of wrongdoing by the State of Texas.”

Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith is the only federal court of appeals judge to review the district court’s unlawful and overreaching maps. Judge Smith dissented after finding that the other two judges on the panel exceeded their legal authority and acted as a “mini-legislature” by improperly imposing a “runaway plan” that substitutes unelected judges’ policy preferences for those of the duly elected Texas Legislature:

“In summary, it is difficult to overstate what the majority... has wrought in ordaining its ambitious scheme. Its plan is far reaching and extreme. It expands the role of a three-judge interim court well beyond what is legal, practical, or fair.”

I. Federal Courts Cannot Redraw States’ Redistricting Plans Except to Remedy Violations of Federal Law Under the U.S. Constitution, states are granted broad authority to enact legislative and congressional districts. Unless a federal court determines that districts enacted by the Texas Legislature violate either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act -- or are at least likely to constitute a violation -- the courts have no authority to unilaterally redraw the State’s maps. Even the two-judge majority that is attempting to impose unlawful maps on the State of Texas acknowledged that no court has found the State’s maps violate the Constitution or federal law.

As Judge Smith’s dissent explains, until a federal court finds that the State’s maps are at least likely to be found to violate federal law or the Constitution, the courts “must give due regard to the will of the Legislature.” Because the two-judge majority has not found that the State’s maps violate the law or the Constitution, Judge Smith chastised the district court for imposing its policy preferences on the State without showing deference to the Texas Legislature:

“[T]he majority ... as though sitting as a mini-legislature, engrafts its policy preferences statewide despite the fact that no such extreme modifications are required by the case law or by the facts that are before this court.”
II. The State’s Legal Claims

The State’s brief explains: “Because the district court did not identify an instance in which the legislatively enacted Texas House map likely violated federal law, it should not have altered the map.” Referring to the federal court’s order as a “flagrant usurpation of the Legislature’s proper role in the redistricting process,” the State explains that the court’s order must be stayed and reversed by the Supreme Court. As the State’s appeal notes: “The court’s interim order utterly abandons... any pretense of tethering its map to politically-accountable judgments.”

Echoing Judge Smith’s admonition that the two-judge majority’s interim maps are “extreme,” the State’s brief notes serious federalism concerns raised by the district court’s order: “The extreme remedy of a wholesale rewriting of the voting map misperceives the governing presumptions and does needless violence to the delicate federal/state balance in this area.”

In addition to violating the Constitution’s federalism principles, the district court’s order improperly relies upon race to draw legislative districts. Under the Constitution, federal courts are not authorized to impose race-based decision-making unless those decisions are based upon a need to remedy racial discrimination. The court’s order did not find that the State’s maps contained a racially-motivated harm that courts are authorized to remedy. As a result, the district court’s decision violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by engaging in racially-motivated decision making.

The district court’s self-imposed race-based map drawing has the effect of being politically tinged. District lines drawn by the courts may result in Hispanic Republican elected officials being replaced by Hispanic Democrats. The Texas Legislature drew maps that attempted to protect Hispanic Republican incumbents. However, the court drew a map that would replace those officeholders with Hispanic Democrats. Such outcome-oriented decision making is outside the province of the federal courts.

The State’s appeal of the district court’s interim Texas Senate map also objects to the fact that the court redrew five senate districts because a “a single disgruntled Texas Senator” filed a “lawsuit at the eleventh hour claiming a violation of the Voting Rights Act -- even when no one else, including the Department of Justice, believes that claim has merit.” The Texas Senate map was passed 29-2 with the support of an overwhelming, bipartisan majority. As a result, the State’s brief explains: “The district court should not have fallen prey to this tactic, and its order should be stayed and summarily reversed.”

Today’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks emergency relief from the district court’s improper redrawing of Texas Senate and House of Representatives districts. The district court issued those interim redistricting plans for state legislative districts on November 23, 2011. Separately, the court issued interim congressional maps on November 25. The court-drawn congressional maps will be subject to a separate emergency appeal.

Your Opinions and Comments

Rock'n chair Rambler  
Over Taxed, TX  
December 5, 2011 8:08am
"keep silent the majority of Texas in the new census numbers." Huh? Well, are they minorities or are they the majority? Make up your damn mind. If you are in the majority, then the Act does not apply. Regardless, ... More ›

Something else to say 2  
December 4, 2011 6:47pm
Of course he would appeal. Give the "minorities-under dogs" whatever you want to call them a chance to have their true voices heard? Make everyone aware of the new aspects that can be held in Texas Government-that ... More ›

Rock'n chair Rambler  
Over Taxed, TX  
December 1, 2011 6:38am
And they wonder why we still want to secede.

Elaine K.  
November 28, 2011 12:50pm
New post.

Share your comment or opinion on this story!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Breaking News Archives

DPS Urges Safe Driving During Memorial Day Weekend (May 27, 2016)
Governor/Crime Stoppers Offer Reward In I-35 Rock Throwing Case (May 27, 2016)
‘Basics for the Best’ honors veterans May 28 in Floresville (May 27, 2016)
Flash flood watch (May 26, 2016)
Law officials seek info in connection with shooting (May 26, 2016)
Precinct 3 primary runoff is today (May 24, 2016)
Update on missing Floresville High School teens (May 24, 2016)
Attend Eagle Creek emergency services town hall meetings (May 20, 2016)
Boil water notice canceled for Cimarron residents (May 20, 2016)
FELPS continues power repairs in wake of Wilson County storms (May 20, 2016)
Updated rainfall for the week (May 20, 2016)
Rain closes schools in Nixon, roads in Wilson County (May 19, 2016)
Weather alert (May 19, 2016)
Storms cut swath of damage across South Texas (May 18, 2016)
Local rain reports (May 16, 2016)
Passersby find burning body (May 12, 2016)
Watch for two trucks reported stolen from Floresville High School (May 12, 2016)
Pilgrim’s Pride recall chicken products (May 10, 2016)
Police: La Vernia High School students are safe; no incident, despite rumors (May 9, 2016)
May 7 election night coverage (May 7, 2016)
Blue Bell recalls Rocky Road ice cream (May 6, 2016)
Firefighters battle grass blaze near Floresville (May 5, 2016)
Early voting closes in May 7 elections (May 4, 2016)
Early voting numbers (May 3, 2016)
Floresville ISD hires Rohrs as athletic director (May 3, 2016)
Floresville police seek information about Walmart theft (May 3, 2016)
Local rain reports (May 2, 2016)
Southern Electric
Malcolm's Custom Welding
WCN Citizens Forum 5/28/15
Triple R DC ExpertsVoncille Bielefeld homeAllstate & McBride RealtyHeavenly Touch home

  Copyright © 2007-2016 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.