403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
Supreme Court Backs Texas Map In Test Of Race, Power And Election Rules
(MENAFN- The Rio Times) Key Points
A 6–3 Supreme Court majority let Texas use a Republican-drawn congressional map for the 2026 elections.
The ruling could help Republicans secure up to five more House seats while minority-rights groups cry foul.
The case tests how far states can push partisan gerrymanders without crossing the line into illegal racial discrimination.
The US Supreme Court has given Texas Republicans a provisional win in the struggle over who draws America's political map.
In a 6–3 emergency order, the court allowed the state to use a new congressional map for 2026 that a lower federal panel had blocked as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
At stake are as many as five US House seats. The plan, pushed by Republicans after Donald Trump urged mid-decade changes, reshapes districts in urban areas and along the US-Mexico border.
Critics say it cracks and packs Black and Latino communities, dismantling coalition districts where minorities together could choose a representative.
Texas Map Fight Signals a Bigger Battle Over Who Gets a Real Voice
Texas argues that the map reflects hardball politics, not race, and leans on a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that said federal judges cannot strike down maps as too partisan.
It also claimed the three-judge panel acted too close to the 8 December filing deadline, violating the court's Purcell doctrine against late election changes, a point echoed by Justice Samuel Alito's temporary stay.
The panel concluded that race was central to how lawmakers sorted voters and said any disruption stemmed from the legislature's decision to redraw the map at the last minute, not from judicial review.
Liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson adopted that view in dissent, warning that the order harms millions of Texans assigned to districts based on race.
Civil-rights groups fear that if Texas ultimately prevails, other states will have a freer hand to dilute minority voting power while claiming partisan motives.
Democrats, meanwhile, are pursuing their own advantages through a California map, and a separate Louisiana case could sharply limit when states must draw majority-minority districts.
For voters in Texas and beyond, the fight over district lines will help decide who speaks for them in Washington long before they cast a single ballot.
A 6–3 Supreme Court majority let Texas use a Republican-drawn congressional map for the 2026 elections.
The ruling could help Republicans secure up to five more House seats while minority-rights groups cry foul.
The case tests how far states can push partisan gerrymanders without crossing the line into illegal racial discrimination.
The US Supreme Court has given Texas Republicans a provisional win in the struggle over who draws America's political map.
In a 6–3 emergency order, the court allowed the state to use a new congressional map for 2026 that a lower federal panel had blocked as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
At stake are as many as five US House seats. The plan, pushed by Republicans after Donald Trump urged mid-decade changes, reshapes districts in urban areas and along the US-Mexico border.
Critics say it cracks and packs Black and Latino communities, dismantling coalition districts where minorities together could choose a representative.
Texas Map Fight Signals a Bigger Battle Over Who Gets a Real Voice
Texas argues that the map reflects hardball politics, not race, and leans on a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that said federal judges cannot strike down maps as too partisan.
It also claimed the three-judge panel acted too close to the 8 December filing deadline, violating the court's Purcell doctrine against late election changes, a point echoed by Justice Samuel Alito's temporary stay.
The panel concluded that race was central to how lawmakers sorted voters and said any disruption stemmed from the legislature's decision to redraw the map at the last minute, not from judicial review.
Liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson adopted that view in dissent, warning that the order harms millions of Texans assigned to districts based on race.
Civil-rights groups fear that if Texas ultimately prevails, other states will have a freer hand to dilute minority voting power while claiming partisan motives.
Democrats, meanwhile, are pursuing their own advantages through a California map, and a separate Louisiana case could sharply limit when states must draw majority-minority districts.
For voters in Texas and beyond, the fight over district lines will help decide who speaks for them in Washington long before they cast a single ballot.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Most popular stories
Market Research
More Story
Comments
No comment