Perry v. Perez

Background

Texas’s legislature redrew its congressional and state legislative maps after a large population increase. Because Texas is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the new maps had to get federal approval — called preclearance — before use. The State submitted its maps to the D.C. court, but preclearance was not finished before the 2012 elections, and the old maps were unusable because of population shifts. Plaintiffs in Texas sued, alleging the new plans diluted Latino and African-American voting strength, and a local three-judge court drew interim maps for the upcoming elections.

Reasoning

The Court addressed how a district court should draw interim election maps when a state’s new plan lacks preclearance. The Justices said federal courts should take guidance from the State’s recently enacted plan rather than substitute their own policy choices, unless parts of the state plan have a reasonable probability of failing Section 5 or plaintiffs are likely to win on constitutional or Voting Rights Act claims. The Court criticized the lower court for altering districts without showing legal defects and for refusing to split precincts when the State’s plan did so.

Real world impact

The decision vacates the Texas court’s interim maps and sends the cases back for reconsideration under this standard. It affects election officials, voters, and minority communities in Texas by changing how interim maps are made before preclearance is resolved. The ruling is procedural and does not finally decide whether Texas’s enacted plans are lawful; those merits challenges and the preclearance decision still must proceed.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas wrote separately, agreeing with the result but saying Section 5 is unconstitutional and that Texas’s enacted plans should have been used without preclearance. His view would have fully restored the State’s maps for the elections.