- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Posts
- 61,759
- Reaction score
- 15,398
- Points
- 113
My favorite part: the new maps weren't done for race-based reasons. LOL! 
www.scotusblog.com
"Assume that Texas Legislature acted in good faith":
Kagan points to the elephant in the room:
Supreme Court allows Texas to use redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory
Updated on Dec. 5 at 8:58 a.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green light to Texasā efforts to be able to use a new congressional map favorable to [ā¦]
www.scotusblog.com
On Nov. 18, a majority of the three-judge district court blocked the state from using the 2025 map in the upcoming elections and ordered Texas to instead use the existing map, which it enacted in 2021. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, in a 160-page opinion joined by Senior U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, wrote that although āpolitics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map,ā āit was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence,ā he concluded, āshows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.ā
Texas countered that it had adopted the map for purely political and partisan reasons, and in particular, in response to Trumpās demands for five new House seats. Racial motivations, it said, were not in play.
"Assume that Texas Legislature acted in good faith":
Citing its decision in Alexander, the court agreed with the state that the challengersā failure to āproduce a viable alternative map that met the Stateās avowedly partisan goalsā should have led to a ādispositive or near-dispositive adverse inferenceā against them. And, it said, the lower court should have presumed that legislators were acting in good faith, but instead it āconstru[ed] ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.ā
Kagan points to the elephant in the room:
In her dissent, Kagan chided her colleagues in the majority for their decision to override the lower courtās decision. She emphasized that the lower courtās ātask ⦠was a singularly factual one: It had to choose between the plaintiffsā ārace predominatedā account and the Stateās ārace never entered the pictureā story.ā The district court, she said, had approached that task carefully. Among other things, it āconducted a nine-day hearing, involving the testimony of nearly two dozen witnesses and the introduction of thousands of exhibits,ā and it āissued a 160-page opinion recounting in detail its factual findings.ā
Last edited:

























