31:
1143:
728:
635:
in violation of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Scalia, joined by Thomas, concurred in that judgment but felt the case should be dismissed as non-judicable. Justice Souter, joined by Ginsburg, dissented, arguing to vacate and remand. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing to reverse.
593:
New district 25 wasn't compact enough to be considered a qualifying replacement majority-minority Latino district. The two Latino communities within new district 25 were more than 300 miles apart, raising the appearance that the district was drawn to pick up as many
Latinos as possible without
600:
There is no need to rule on whether or not new district 25 is itself a racial gerrymander in violation of section 2 because the changes to district 23 will of necessity affect district 25 and it is therefore moot. However, the lower court decision that it was not in violation of section 2 is
411:
helped
Republicans win total control of the state in the 2002 election, however, they sought to replace the court's redistricting plan. Democratic lawmakers known as the "Killer Ds" and the "Texas Eleven" fled the state to deny the legislature of a quorum, but the clerk of the
176:
Texas's redrawing of
District 23’s lines amounts to vote dilution violative of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while other newly created districts remain constitutional. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and
613:
Chief
Justice Roberts, joined by Alito dissented. Justice Scalia also dissented and, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Alito, argued that District 23 violated neither the Voting Rights Act nor the Equal Protection Clause.
1815:
1783:
1412:
2074:
451:
rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims, with Judge Ward concurring in part and dissenting in part. On
October 18, 2004, however, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case after its new plurality decision in
622:
New district 25 is more than an adequate replacement for old 23 (if necessarily), and indeed the majority accepts that new district 25 performed better for
Latinos in 2004 than old district 23 from 1992—2002.
618:
Nowhere in the Voting Rights Act or its legislative history is compactness of districts mentioned and that the majority is causing the jurisprudence of section 2 to diverge more and more from the legislative
1720:
1508:
1476:
2138:
734:
1735:
1943:
1911:
643:(a White Democrat) never having been challenged in 22 years in a primary made it impossible to dispute the state legislative history that it was specifically created for a White Democrat.
525:
did not join that part of the opinion but concurred in the judgment, while noting that they were “taking no position” on if political gerrymandering claims were even justiciable. Justice
447:, and it was in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On January 6, 2004, a three-judge district court now made up of Circuit Judge Higgenbotham, and District Judges Ward and
1460:
872:
371:
gains as a result of the redistricting in Texas. The Court also declined to resolve a dispute over whether partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions.
651:
On August 4, 2006, the three-judge court made its remedial order. The three-judge court adjusted the lines of the 23rd and four other districts — the 28th (represented by
Democrat
2198:
1759:
1775:
443:, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, losing his seat. Private plaintiffs sued, alleging any mid-decade redistricting was illegal, the plan was an unconstitutional
2208:
1927:
1903:
2055:
1444:
425:
2213:
2039:
1871:
1727:
1863:
1839:
1572:
1452:
327:
1428:
991:
715:
692:
93:
489:
On June 28, 2006, the second to last day of the term, a highly fractured Court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims except for the vote dilution claim in
1704:
1919:
1688:
470:
2090:
1807:
1743:
1680:
1532:
1500:
1420:
2106:
2082:
1831:
1799:
1492:
1468:
1201:
1855:
533:, also concurred in the judgment but felt that the case should be dismissed because political gerrymandering claims are not justiciable. Justice
1999:
1548:
1540:
1516:
1696:
818:"Another Explosive DOJ Voting Rights Memo Leaked to the Washington Post; Could It Affect Supreme Court's Decision in Texas Redistricting Case?"
1306:
866:
1339:
462:
doctrine. On June 9, 2005, the three-judge court rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims again, with Judge Ward writing a special concurrence.
2162:
1991:
1110:
2193:
2218:
54:
2203:
1011:
367:
district boundaries in comport with the Court's ruling, though the ruling ultimately did not substantially reduce or reverse the
639:
The majority of the court noted that old district 24 had three separate communities to begin with (Whites, Blacks, Latino) and
632:
490:
1179:
1174:
356:. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan
1087:
667:) — all of which held new primary elections on November 7. Cuellar, Doggett, Hinojosa, and Smith were all reelected, while
1055:
444:
2031:
2015:
1823:
1284:
345:
35:
465:
Plaintiffs appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, where two hours of argument were heard on March 1, 2006, with
1712:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1332:
1296:
408:
368:
517:, rejected plaintiff’s claim that the statewide plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Chief Justice
1115:
926:
1228:
1060:
413:
1290:
1120:
416:
issued arrest warrants for the legislators and DeLay had federal agencies track their movements. Governor
1556:
1325:
1317:
1257:
1233:
590:
Latino district (indeed in 2002 on the verge of throwing out the incumbent that wasn't of their choice).
1252:
1130:
587:
631:
Justice
Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, found that the plan did not crack
2154:
429:
380:
1029:
597:
And therefore new
District 23 is a section 2 violation of the Voting Rights Act and must be redrawn.
573:
The Court, now of Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer, applied
541:, dissented, arguing that because the plan’s “sole intent” was explicitly partisan, it violated the
1223:
1080:
787:
349:
749:
1436:
542:
579:(1986) to find vote dilution in District 23 in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
439:
At the November 2004 election, Republican seats increased from fifteen to twenty-one, with even
1983:
1664:
656:
364:
1672:
1639:
995:
970:
912:
719:
494:
163:
144:
85:
1020:
545:
and that Republicans had created “their own impermissible stranglehold on political power.”
391:
and a new plan had to be drawn by a federal three-judge court made up of U.S. Circuit Judge
1791:
1218:
894:
672:
575:
392:
129:
8:
2223:
1967:
1959:
1951:
1591:
1484:
1388:
1273:
1073:
514:
396:
232:
1002:
2146:
1607:
1524:
1364:
1279:
1239:
1038:
722:
560:
under the federal constitution or acts of Congress was explicitly rejected. States can
459:
454:
74:
2228:
2047:
1935:
1879:
1645:
1631:
1599:
1564:
1301:
1125:
534:
433:
384:
353:
331:
200:
62:
2122:
2007:
1751:
1623:
1396:
668:
478:
448:
88:
2170:
2114:
2023:
1767:
1380:
1061:
JURIST – Paper Chase: Supreme Court leaves Texas redistricting map largely intact
876:
530:
518:
506:
421:
224:
212:
1142:
671:, the Republican representative for the 23rd District, was defeated by Democrat
2130:
783:
664:
660:
538:
526:
357:
236:
208:
788:"Drawing the Line: Will Tom DeLay's redistricting in Texas cost him his seat?"
2187:
2098:
1404:
1372:
1349:
1196:
On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts are Worth Fighting For
652:
561:
549:
The plaintiff's argument of this being a statewide unconstitutional partisan
466:
388:
1895:
1887:
1847:
944:
685:
640:
522:
510:
440:
400:
244:
220:
192:
1347:
2139:
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
1047:
940:
564:
as often they please as long as they do it at least once every ten years.
550:
261:
Kennedy (Parts II–A and III), joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
160:
141:
126:
1096:
813:
417:
104:
58:
817:
404:
133:
100:
474:
556:
The plaintiff's argument that states can redistrict only once per
473:
appearing for the District 23 plaintiffs, Texas Solicitor General
477:
appearing for the state, and then-Deputy U.S. Solicitor General
557:
30:
1065:
493:, producing six different opinions spanning 121 pages of the
469:
appearing for the statewide plaintiffs, Nina Perales of the
428:
advised the plan failed preclearance under Section 5 of the
348:
case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the
2056:
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
1816:
Houston Lawyers' Association v. Attorney General of Texas
426:
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
735:
public domain material from this U.S government document
432:
but were overruled by acting Assistant Attorney General
424:
and ultimately passed the new plan. Career staff at the
2040:
Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
2199:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
1573:
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
750:"Justices Back Most G.O.P. Changes to Texas Districts"
693:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 548
1784:
Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks
747:
608:
140:, 125 S. Ct. 351 (2004) (mem.); denying relief, 399
941:"League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry"
471:
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
301:
Scalia, joined by Thomas; Roberts, Alito (Part III)
136:2004); vacating and remanding for reconsideration,
2209:United States political question doctrine case law
269:Kennedy (Parts I and IV), joined by Roberts, Alito
1976:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
1616:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
1247:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
1202:Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington
988:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
966:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
712:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
341:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
157:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
24:League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
2185:
2000:Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections
1541:Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris
1413:Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colorado
277:Kennedy (Part II–D), joined by Souter, Ginsburg
2214:United States electoral redistricting case law
2075:Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist.
1333:
1307:Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas
1081:
604:The case is remanded for further proceedings.
868:The Supreme Court, 2005 Term — Leading Cases
2163:Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill
1992:Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
1111:Texas House of Representatives, District 64
1340:
1326:
1088:
1074:
812:
782:
586:Old district 23 was a qualified protected
293:Stevens, joined by Breyer (Parts I and II)
363:The opinion requires lawmakers to adjust
1721:East Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. Marshall
1509:East Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. Marshall
1477:Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District
778:
776:
774:
772:
770:
568:
55:League of United Latin American Citizens
862:
860:
858:
582:By a 5–4 vote the majority ruled that:
2186:
856:
854:
852:
850:
848:
846:
844:
842:
840:
838:
748:The Associated Press (June 28, 2006).
1321:
1069:
924:
767:
18:2006 United States Supreme Court case
1736:United Jewish Organizations v. Carey
1056:State of Texas – Texas Redistricting
1944:Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board
1912:Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board
835:
646:
633:Texas's 24th congressional district
500:
491:Texas's 23rd congressional district
13:
1350:redistricting in the United States
1285:Al Gore 1988 presidential campaign
346:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
2240:
2194:United States Supreme Court cases
1713:City of Richmond v. United States
1461:Hadley v. Junior College District
998:399 (2006) is available from:
980:
609:Dissents on Districts 23 & 25
383:Democrats and Republicans in the
2219:Congressional districts of Texas
1297:Republican Governors Association
1141:
927:"When Ted Cruz Argued at SCOTUS"
871:, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 243 (2006).
726:
675:in a newly 61% Latino district.
484:
481:appearing as a friend of Texas.
409:Texans for a Republican Majority
387:could not reach an agreement on
29:
1824:Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n
1116:Texas Agricultural Commissioner
958:
2204:2006 in United States case law
1229:Texas Emerging Technology Fund
1095:
933:
918:
900:
882:
806:
741:
705:
626:
414:Texas House of Representatives
1:
1760:City of Rome v. United States
929:– via National Journal.
925:Baker, Sam (March 23, 2015).
698:
374:
1121:Lieutenant Governor of Texas
879: (archived 7 April 2017)
344:, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a
7:
2032:North Carolina v. Covington
2016:North Carolina v. Covington
1776:Escambia County v. McMillan
1557:Tennant v. Jefferson County
1234:Texas Tax Reform Commission
971:457 F. Supp. 2d 716
913:399 F. Supp. 2d 756
895:298 F. Supp. 2d 451
678:
395:, and U.S. District Judges
10:
2245:
1253:Texas Virtual Border Watch
1048:Oyez (oral argument audio)
973: (E.D. Tex. 2006).
915: (E.D. Tex. 2005).
897: (E.D. Tex. 2004).
733:This article incorporates
309:Souter, joined by Ginsburg
2155:Wittman v. Personhuballah
2066:
1656:
1583:
1356:
1266:
1211:
1188:
1150:
1139:
1103:
430:Voting Rights Act of 1965
381:2000 United States census
332:Voting Rights Act of 1965
326:
321:
313:
305:
297:
289:
281:
273:
265:
257:
252:
186:
181:
175:
170:
151:
117:
112:
80:
70:
49:
42:
28:
23:
1928:Lopez v. Monterey County
1904:Lopez v. Monterey County
1224:2003 Texas redistricting
794:. No. March 6, 2006
350:2003 Texas redistricting
285:Roberts, joined by Alito
1584:Partisan gerrymandering
1445:Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
1437:Avery v. Midland County
663:) and 21st (Republican
543:Equal Protection Clause
1984:Bartlett v. Strickland
1665:Gomillion v. Lightfoot
594:regard to compactness.
328:U.S. Const. amend. XIV
1872:United States v. Hays
1728:Beer v. United States
1673:Wright v. Rockefeller
1657:Racial gerrymandering
1640:Rucho v. Common Cause
569:Districts 23 & 25
509:, joined by Justices
495:United States Reports
99:126 S. Ct. 2594; 165
45:Decided June 28, 2006
1864:Johnson v. De Grandy
1840:Voinovich v. Quilter
1792:Thornburg v. Gingles
1453:Wells v. Rockefeller
1348:Case law related to
1219:Trans-Texas Corridor
816:(December 2, 2005).
576:Thornburg v. Gingles
445:partisan gerrymander
393:Patrick Higginbotham
43:Argued March 1, 2006
1968:Georgia v. Ashcroft
1960:Easley v. Cromartie
1952:Sinkfield v. Kelley
1592:Gaffney v. Cummings
1485:Gaffney v. Cummings
1429:Burns v. Richardson
1389:Wesberry v. Sanders
1157:Governor of Texas:
515:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
397:John H. Hannah, Jr.
233:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
2147:Shapiro v. McManus
1705:Whitcomb v. Chavis
1608:Vieth v. Jubelirer
1525:Karcher v. Daggett
1365:Colegrove v. Green
1280:Aggie Yell Leaders
1240:Van Orden v. Perry
908:Henderson v. Perry
659:), 15th (Democrat
655:), 25th (Democrat
460:political question
455:Vieth v. Jubelirer
197:Associate Justices
138:Henderson v. Perry
2181:
2180:
2048:Allen v. Milligan
1936:Hunt v. Cromartie
1920:Abrams v. Johnson
1880:Miller v. Johnson
1689:Connor v. Johnson
1646:Lamone v. Benisek
1632:Benisek v. Lamone
1600:Davis v. Bandemer
1565:Evenwel v. Abbott
1315:
1314:
1302:Rosemary Lehmberg
1126:Governor of Texas
822:Election Law Blog
588:majority-minority
553:was rejected 7-2.
535:John Paul Stevens
434:Bradley Schlozman
385:Texas Legislature
354:Voting Rights Act
337:
336:
166:(E.D. Tex. 2006).
147:(E.D. Tex. 2005).
63:Governor of Texas
2236:
2123:Lance v. Coffman
2091:Quinn v. Millsap
2008:Cooper v. Harris
1808:Chisom v. Roemer
1752:Mobile v. Bolden
1744:Wise v. Lipscomb
1681:Turner v. Fouche
1624:Gill v. Whitford
1533:Brown v. Thomson
1501:Chapman v. Meier
1421:Fortson v. Toomb
1397:Reynolds v. Sims
1357:Equal population
1342:
1335:
1328:
1319:
1318:
1291:Man of the House
1173:U.S. President:
1145:
1090:
1083:
1076:
1067:
1066:
1052:
1046:
1043:
1037:
1034:
1028:
1025:
1019:
1016:
1010:
1007:
1001:
974:
968:
962:
956:
955:
953:
951:
937:
931:
930:
922:
916:
910:
904:
898:
892:
890:Session v. Perry
886:
880:
864:
833:
832:
830:
828:
810:
804:
803:
801:
799:
780:
765:
764:
762:
760:
745:
739:
730:
729:
709:
647:Practical result
501:Statewide claims
479:Gregory G. Garre
458:readdressed the
449:Lee H. Rosenthal
422:special sessions
182:Court membership
155:Remedial order,
123:Session v. Perry
121:Denying relief,
33:
32:
21:
20:
2244:
2243:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2177:
2171:Moore v. Harper
2115:Lance v. Dennis
2107:Branch v. Smith
2083:Upham v. Seamon
2062:
2024:Abbott v. Perez
1832:Growe v. Emison
1800:Clark v. Roemer
1768:Rogers v. Lodge
1652:
1579:
1493:White v. Weiser
1469:Mahan v. Howell
1381:Gray v. Sanders
1352:
1346:
1316:
1311:
1262:
1207:
1184:
1146:
1137:
1099:
1094:
1050:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1032:
1026:
1023:
1017:
1014:
1008:
1005:
999:
983:
978:
977:
964:
963:
959:
949:
947:
939:
938:
934:
923:
919:
906:
905:
901:
888:
887:
883:
877:Wayback Machine
865:
836:
826:
824:
811:
807:
797:
795:
781:
768:
758:
756:
746:
742:
727:
710:
706:
701:
681:
649:
629:
611:
571:
531:Clarence Thomas
519:John G. Roberts
507:Anthony Kennedy
503:
487:
377:
235:
225:Clarence Thomas
223:
213:Anthony Kennedy
211:
201:John P. Stevens
108:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2242:
2232:
2231:
2226:
2221:
2216:
2211:
2206:
2201:
2196:
2179:
2178:
2176:
2175:
2167:
2159:
2151:
2143:
2135:
2131:Perry v. Perez
2127:
2119:
2111:
2103:
2095:
2087:
2079:
2070:
2068:
2064:
2063:
2061:
2060:
2052:
2044:
2036:
2028:
2020:
2012:
2004:
1996:
1988:
1980:
1972:
1964:
1956:
1948:
1940:
1932:
1924:
1916:
1908:
1900:
1892:
1884:
1876:
1868:
1860:
1856:Holder v. Hall
1852:
1844:
1836:
1828:
1820:
1812:
1804:
1796:
1788:
1780:
1772:
1764:
1756:
1748:
1740:
1732:
1724:
1717:
1709:
1701:
1693:
1685:
1677:
1669:
1660:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1651:
1650:
1636:
1628:
1620:
1612:
1604:
1596:
1587:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1578:
1577:
1569:
1561:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1529:
1521:
1513:
1505:
1497:
1489:
1481:
1473:
1465:
1457:
1449:
1441:
1433:
1425:
1417:
1409:
1401:
1393:
1385:
1377:
1369:
1360:
1358:
1354:
1353:
1345:
1344:
1337:
1330:
1322:
1313:
1312:
1310:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1270:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1243:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1206:
1205:
1198:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1171:
1166:
1161:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1140:
1138:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1078:
1070:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1030:Google Scholar
982:
981:External links
979:
976:
975:
957:
932:
917:
899:
881:
834:
805:
792:The New Yorker
784:Jeffrey Toobin
766:
754:New York Times
740:
703:
702:
700:
697:
696:
695:
690:
680:
677:
673:Ciro Rodriguez
665:Lamar S. Smith
661:Ruben Hinojosa
648:
645:
628:
625:
624:
623:
620:
610:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
595:
591:
570:
567:
566:
565:
554:
539:Stephen Breyer
527:Antonin Scalia
502:
499:
486:
483:
376:
373:
358:gerrymandering
335:
334:
324:
323:
319:
318:
315:
314:Concur/dissent
311:
310:
307:
306:Concur/dissent
303:
302:
299:
298:Concur/dissent
295:
294:
291:
290:Concur/dissent
287:
286:
283:
282:Concur/dissent
279:
278:
275:
271:
270:
267:
263:
262:
259:
255:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
237:Stephen Breyer
209:Antonin Scalia
198:
195:
190:
184:
183:
179:
178:
173:
172:
168:
167:
153:
149:
148:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
98:
82:
78:
77:
72:
68:
67:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2241:
2230:
2227:
2225:
2222:
2220:
2217:
2215:
2212:
2210:
2207:
2205:
2202:
2200:
2197:
2195:
2192:
2191:
2189:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2141:
2140:
2136:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2117:
2116:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2100:
2099:Utah v. Evans
2096:
2093:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2071:
2069:
2065:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2034:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2025:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1930:
1929:
1925:
1922:
1921:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1890:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1881:
1877:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1866:
1865:
1861:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1794:
1793:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1778:
1777:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1746:
1745:
1741:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1661:
1659:
1655:
1648:
1647:
1642:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1582:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1549:Cox v. Larios
1546:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1517:Ball v. James
1514:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1405:Davis v. Mann
1402:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1373:Baker v. Carr
1370:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1343:
1338:
1336:
1331:
1329:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1181:
1180:2016 campaign
1178:
1176:
1175:2012 campaign
1172:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1149:
1144:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1091:
1086:
1084:
1079:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1049:
1040:
1031:
1022:
1013:
1012:CourtListener
1004:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
972:
967:
961:
946:
942:
936:
928:
921:
914:
909:
903:
896:
891:
885:
878:
874:
870:
869:
863:
861:
859:
857:
855:
853:
851:
849:
847:
845:
843:
841:
839:
823:
819:
815:
809:
793:
789:
785:
779:
777:
775:
773:
771:
755:
751:
744:
738:
736:
725: (2006).
724:
721:
717:
713:
708:
704:
694:
691:
688:
687:
683:
682:
676:
674:
670:
669:Henry Bonilla
666:
662:
658:
657:Lloyd Doggett
654:
653:Henry Cuellar
644:
642:
637:
634:
621:
617:
616:
615:
603:
599:
596:
592:
589:
585:
584:
583:
580:
578:
577:
563:
559:
555:
552:
548:
547:
546:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
498:
496:
492:
485:Supreme Court
482:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:Paul M. Smith
463:
461:
457:
456:
450:
446:
442:
437:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:called three
419:
415:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:redistricting
386:
382:
372:
370:
366:
365:congressional
361:
359:
355:
352:violated the
351:
347:
343:
342:
333:
329:
325:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
253:Case opinions
251:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:Chief Justice
188:
187:
185:
180:
174:
169:
165:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
106:
102:
96:
95:
90:
87:
83:
79:
76:
73:
69:
66:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
2169:
2161:
2153:
2145:
2137:
2129:
2121:
2113:
2105:
2097:
2089:
2081:
2073:
2054:
2046:
2038:
2030:
2022:
2014:
2006:
1998:
1990:
1982:
1975:
1974:
1966:
1958:
1950:
1942:
1934:
1926:
1918:
1910:
1902:
1896:Bush v. Vera
1894:
1888:Shaw v. Hunt
1886:
1878:
1870:
1862:
1854:
1848:Shaw v. Reno
1846:
1838:
1830:
1822:
1814:
1806:
1798:
1790:
1782:
1774:
1766:
1758:
1750:
1742:
1734:
1726:
1719:
1711:
1703:
1697:Ely v. Klahr
1695:
1687:
1679:
1671:
1663:
1644:
1638:
1630:
1622:
1615:
1614:
1606:
1598:
1590:
1571:
1563:
1555:
1547:
1539:
1531:
1523:
1515:
1507:
1499:
1491:
1483:
1475:
1467:
1459:
1451:
1443:
1435:
1427:
1419:
1411:
1403:
1395:
1387:
1379:
1371:
1363:
1289:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1200:
1195:
987:
965:
960:
948:. Retrieved
945:Oyez Project
935:
920:
907:
902:
889:
884:
867:
825:. Retrieved
821:
808:
796:. Retrieved
791:
757:. Retrieved
753:
743:
732:
711:
707:
686:Bush v. Vera
684:
650:
641:Martin Frost
638:
630:
612:
581:
574:
572:
537:, joined by
529:, joined by
523:Samuel Alito
511:David Souter
504:
488:
464:
453:
441:Martin Frost
438:
401:T. John Ward
378:
362:
340:
339:
338:
322:Laws applied
245:Samuel Alito
240:
228:
221:David Souter
216:
204:
193:John Roberts
156:
137:
122:
113:Case history
92:
57:, et al. v.
53:
15:
1274:Anita Perry
950:October 14,
627:District 24
551:gerrymander
161:F. Supp. 2d
142:F. Supp. 2d
127:F. Supp. 2d
2224:Rick Perry
2188:Categories
1258:Indictment
1097:Rick Perry
814:Rick Hasen
699:References
562:redistrict
418:Rick Perry
379:After the
375:Background
369:Republican
152:Subsequent
105:U.S. LEXIS
103:609; 2006
71:Docket no.
59:Rick Perry
1151:Elections
405:Tom DeLay
274:Plurality
266:Plurality
177:remanded.
134:E.D. Tex.
101:L. Ed. 2d
81:Citations
2229:Ted Cruz
1276:(spouse)
986:Text of
873:Archived
759:June 28,
679:See also
619:history.
601:vacated.
505:Justice
475:Ted Cruz
407:and his
258:Majority
65:, et al.
1267:Related
1104:Offices
1021:Findlaw
1003:Cornell
875:at the
827:May 30,
798:May 30,
403:. When
171:Holding
2174:(2023)
2166:(2019)
2158:(2016)
2150:(2015)
2142:(2015)
2134:(2012)
2126:(2007)
2118:(2006)
2110:(2003)
2102:(2002)
2094:(1989)
2086:(1982)
2078:(1977)
2059:(2024)
2051:(2023)
2043:(2022)
2035:(2018)
2027:(2018)
2019:(2017)
2011:(2017)
2003:(2017)
1995:(2015)
1987:(2009)
1979:(2006)
1971:(2003)
1963:(2001)
1955:(2000)
1947:(2000)
1939:(1999)
1931:(1999)
1923:(1997)
1915:(1997)
1907:(1996)
1899:(1996)
1891:(1996)
1883:(1995)
1875:(1995)
1867:(1994)
1859:(1994)
1851:(1993)
1843:(1993)
1835:(1993)
1827:(1992)
1819:(1991)
1811:(1991)
1803:(1991)
1795:(1986)
1787:(1984)
1779:(1984)
1771:(1982)
1763:(1980)
1755:(1980)
1747:(1978)
1739:(1977)
1731:(1976)
1716:(1975)
1708:(1971)
1700:(1971)
1692:(1971)
1684:(1970)
1676:(1964)
1668:(1960)
1649:(2019)
1635:(2018)
1627:(2018)
1619:(2006)
1611:(2004)
1603:(1986)
1595:(1973)
1576:(2016)
1568:(2016)
1560:(2012)
1552:(2004)
1544:(1989)
1536:(1983)
1528:(1983)
1520:(1981)
1512:(1976)
1504:(1975)
1496:(1973)
1488:(1973)
1480:(1973)
1472:(1973)
1464:(1970)
1456:(1969)
1448:(1969)
1440:(1968)
1432:(1966)
1424:(1965)
1416:(1964)
1408:(1964)
1400:(1964)
1392:(1964)
1384:(1963)
1376:(1962)
1368:(1946)
1212:Issues
1131:tenure
1051:
1045:
1042:
1039:Justia
1036:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1018:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1000:
969:,
911:,
893:,
731:
714:,
689:(1996)
558:census
317:Breyer
243:
241:·
239:
231:
229:·
227:
219:
217:·
215:
207:
205:·
203:
159:, 457
125:, 298
75:05-204
2067:Other
1189:Books
994:
718:
118:Prior
1169:2010
1164:2006
1159:2002
996:U.S.
952:2017
829:2016
800:2016
761:2006
720:U.S.
521:and
513:and
399:and
107:5178
94:more
86:U.S.
84:548
992:548
723:399
716:548
164:716
145:756
130:451
89:399
2190::
1643:/
990:,
943:.
837:^
820:.
790:.
786:.
769:^
752:.
497:.
436:.
360:.
330:,
61:,
1341:e
1334:t
1327:v
1089:e
1082:t
1075:v
954:.
831:.
802:.
763:.
737:.
132:(
97:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.