League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry

Background

After the 2000 census, a three‑judge federal court drew a neutral map for Texas (Plan 1151C). When Republicans later controlled the State Legislature in 2003, the legislature replaced that map with a new Republican plan (Plan 1374C). The new plan shifted voters across many districts; most notably it split Webb County and Laredo, reduced Latino citizen voting age share in old District 23, and created a long new District 25 stretching from the Rio Grande Valley to Austin. Lawsuits followed by Latino groups, counties, and others challenged the 2003 plan on voting‑rights, equal protection, and partisan‑gerrymander grounds.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether Texas’ changes violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (the federal ban on vote dilution). Applying the three Gingles preconditions and the “totality of circumstances,” the Court found Latino voters were politically cohesive, faced majority bloc voting by others, and had recently formed an opportunity to elect their candidate in old District 23. The legislature redrew District 23 to protect the incumbent and moved many Latino voters out. The State’s attempt to offset this by creating District 25 failed because District 25 combined two distant Latino communities with different interests and was not a reasonably compact remedy. A statewide proportionality check also showed fewer effective Latino opportunity districts than Latino citizen share would predict. Considering history of discrimination, polarized voting, and the plan’s effects, the Court held that Plan 1374C unlawfully diluted Latino voting power in District 23 and ordered redrawing there.

Real world impact

Texas must redraw District 23 to restore the Latino group’s opportunity to elect its preferred candidates; District 25 and related south‑Texas lines will likely change as part of that remedy. The Court did not find a workable, broad test to strike down the entire 2003 map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, so most of the plan remains in effect for now. The Court declined to reach some race‑ and First Amendment claims tied to District 23 because the §2 ruling controls. The Dallas area §2 claim about an African‑American district was rejected by the Court on the facts presented.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices were sharply divided. Several Justices would have upheld more of the challenges or invalidated larger parts of the map: Justice Stevens (joined in part by Breyer) said he would have invalidated the plan in full and found District 24 unlawful; Justice Souter would have allowed a broader §2 inquiry into District 24. Other Justices (including the Chief Justice) endorsed different parts of the opinion and declined to adopt a single standard for partisan gerrymandering.