- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Posts
- 62,670
- Reaction score
- 16,242
- 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 Texas’ efforts to be able to use a new congressional map favorable to […]
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 “politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map,” “it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence,” he concluded, “shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
Texas countered that it had adopted the map for purely political and partisan reasons, and in particular, in response to Trump’s 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 challengers’ failure to “produce a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals” should have led to a “dispositive or near-dispositive adverse inference” against them. And, it said, the lower court should have presumed that legislators were acting in good faith, but instead it “constru[ed] ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.”
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 court’s decision. She emphasized that the lower court’s “task … was a singularly factual one: It had to choose between the plaintiffs’ ‘race predominated’ account and the State’s ‘race never entered the picture’ story.” The district court, she said, had approached that task carefully. Among other things, it “conducted a nine-day hearing, involving the testimony of nearly two dozen witnesses and the introduction of thousands of exhibits,” and it “issued a 160-page opinion recounting in detail its factual findings.”
Last edited:











