Perry v. Perez
Headline: Court vacates Texas interim election maps and orders the lower court to follow the State’s enacted redistricting plan unless specific legal defects exist, affecting Texas voters and election officials preparing 2012 races.
Holding:
- Requires lower courts to use state redistricting plans as starting points for interim maps.
- Limits court changes unless parts are likely unlawful or to fail federal preclearance.
- Affects Texas voters and election officials preparing 2012 ballot maps and precinct changes.
Summary
Background
After the 2010 census added over four million people in Texas, the State enacted new congressional and legislative district lines and submitted them for federal approval under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (a preclearance process). Because preclearance was still pending and the old maps were no longer population-balanced, a three-judge federal court in Texas drew interim maps for the 2012 elections. Texas appealed the interim orders to this Court.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether a district court drawing temporary maps must ignore the State’s recently enacted plan while federal preclearance and other legal challenges proceed. The Court held that a local court should use the State’s enacted plan as a starting point and follow its policy judgments unless particular parts are likely to fail federal preclearance or are likely unlawful under the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The Court found the Texas court had sometimes substituted its own policy choices, refused to split precincts when the State had, and altered unchallenged districts without showing legal need.
Real world impact
The Court vacated the interim maps and sent the cases back for further proceedings consistent with these limits. That means lower courts drawing temporary maps must look to state plans for guidance and change them only where there is a real legal reason. The preclearance process and the parties’ lawsuits continue, so this ruling governs how interim maps are made but is not a final decision on the merits of the redistricting challenges.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but said he would let Texas’ enacted plans control because he views Section 5 as unconstitutional.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?