Perry v. Perez
The Supreme Court vacated a lower court's temporary redistricting maps for Texas's 2012 elections, ruling that the court had not adequately explained why it deviated from the maps the Texas Legislature had just enacted.
The decision sets out a standard for how much deference federal courts must give a state's own redistricting choices when drawing stand-in maps while the state's plan awaits federal approval, sending the case back for the lower court to try again under that standard.
“Redistricting is “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.””
The Court's starting point that states, not courts, should normally control redistricting.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court in Texas drew interim election maps; Texas appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which had already stayed those maps and agreed to hear the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
After the 2010 census showed Texas had gained over four million residents, the State redrew its congressional, state senate, and state house districts and added four new congressional seats. Voters and civil rights groups sued, claiming the new maps discriminated against Latino and African-American voters, while the maps also awaited required federal approval under the Voting Rights Act before Texas's 2012 elections could proceed.
The question before the Court
When a state's newly drawn election maps haven't yet cleared federal review, how much should a court drawing temporary maps for the next election defer to the state's own plan?
Why it matters
Texas voters faced fast-approaching 2012 primary elections without settled district lines, and this ruling forced the trial court to redo its interim maps under stricter guidance. More broadly, the decision shapes how federal courts nationwide handle redistricting when a state's new maps are challenged or awaiting federal preclearance right before an election.
What changes now
The case returns to the federal trial court in Texas, which must redraw the interim maps for the 2012 elections while giving proper weight to the Legislature's enacted plan except where specific parts face a substantial legal challenge. This ruling does not resolve the underlying claims that Texas's permanent maps violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act; those claims, along with the separate preclearance case in Washington, D.C., continue separately.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Texas's newly enacted redistricting maps actually violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and it did not decide whether those maps will ultimately receive federal preclearance. It addressed only the standard for drawing temporary maps while those questions remain unresolved.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas agreed the interim maps should be vacated but for a different reason: he believes Section 5's preclearance requirement is itself unconstitutional, so Texas's newly enacted maps should never have been treated as unenforceable in the first place. In his view, since no court had found Texas's maps unlawful, they should simply govern the 2012 elections while the underlying challenges proceed normally.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a covered state's new district lines cannot be used in an election until a special federal court in Washington, D.C. or the U.S. Attorney General approves them through a process called preclearance.
- Because Texas's old maps were unusable after the population shifts revealed by the census, and its new maps had not yet been precleared, some court had to draw temporary maps for the 2012 elections rather than leave a legal vacuum.
- The Court held that a district court drawing such interim maps must still take guidance from the state's newly enacted plan, since that plan reflects the legislature's own policy choices, unless a specific part of the plan faces a legal challenge that has a reasonable probability of success.
- Applying that standard, the Court found the lower court had deviated from Texas's enacted plan in several places (making small population tweaks, refusing to split voting precincts, and drawing an unusual district) without ever finding those parts of Texas's plan legally flawed.
- The Court also clarified that this deferential approach does not require prejudging a still-pending Voting Rights Act preclearance case, since a district court may follow a state's plan without deciding in advance whether that plan will ultimately be approved.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Upham v. Seamon (456 U. S. 37)
Reaffirmed that courts must defer to unobjectionable parts of a state's redistricting plan even if the plan lacks preclearance.
Reaffirms White v. Weiser (412 U. S. 783)
Reaffirmed as requiring interim maps to closely follow enacted state plans even when those plans have legal problems.
Distinguishes Balderas v. Texas
Said the district court wrongly relied on this earlier case, which involved no enacted state plan to guide the court.