It probably signals that the Court will rule that the voting rights act may not be used to carve out congressional districts based on race. If that happens the Democrats might lose 12 seats in the South.
Deep in the Heart of Texas
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
I agree, and pray we are correct in our prediction. I wonder when that next shoe will drop?
Without even looking, I think I can name the three Justices that voted against the majority.
Without going through the difficult work of analyzing the Texas law, and finding legal reasons for a decision, almost anyone can guess how they will vote on a given case.
Do they hear each case with their minds already made up? It seems that way.
The long string of judicial opinions, re-apportionment, and implementing the Voting Rights Act are an indicator of what a mess the appellate judiciary makes of everything it touchers. (Court-ordered school busing is another indicator, as are judicial opinions on civil service examinations &c).
==
This ruling is pleasing inasmuch as it short-circuits yet another effort by Democrats (many of them in robes) to institute heads-I-win-tails-you-lose rules in elections administration. (Partisan Democrats have been incensed about Citizens United because they fancy that political participation by corporations should be limited to those corporations which favor them, just as they spent years issuing denunciations of the Koch brothers while being awash in sorosphere money). It’s not a substitute for fair rules.