Comments on: Texas cases to be heard March 1 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/texas-cases-to-be-heard-march-1/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Marc Shepherd http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/texas-cases-to-be-heard-march-1/comment-page-1/#comment-8478 Marc Shepherd Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:49:23 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/texas-cases-to-be-heard-march-1/#comment-8478 As this was an appeal from a three-judge district court, the Supreme Court's only options were to schedule a hearing or to rule on the merits summarily. (There is no denial of cert. in such a case.) Rick Hasen speculates on his blog that a per curiam was in the works, but whoever was writing that opinion lost his/her majority. Since the Court didn't ask Texas for a response, the most likely scenario is that there were five votes to affirm. (The Court would be highly unlikely to summarily reverse without giving the losing party a chance to be heard.) I am not sure whether any of the background info mentioned in the preceding post is formally before the court. It is interesting to know that the Justice Department's professional staffers opposed the plan. However, the Department's official response was an approval. Legally, that's what counts. As this was an appeal from a three-judge district court, the Supreme Court’s only options were to schedule a hearing or to rule on the merits summarily. (There is no denial of cert. in such a case.)

Rick Hasen speculates on his blog that a per curiam was in the works, but whoever was writing that opinion lost his/her majority. Since the Court didn’t ask Texas for a response, the most likely scenario is that there were five votes to affirm. (The Court would be highly unlikely to summarily reverse without giving the losing party a chance to be heard.)

I am not sure whether any of the background info mentioned in the preceding post is formally before the court. It is interesting to know that the Justice Department’s professional staffers opposed the plan. However, the Department’s official response was an approval. Legally, that’s what counts.

]]> By: JohnL http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/texas-cases-to-be-heard-march-1/comment-page-1/#comment-8477 JohnL Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:03:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/texas-cases-to-be-heard-march-1/#comment-8477 While it appears the Supreme Court opts to allow very narrow argument, there are numerous impactful related events that probably drew the Justices into curiosity about the particulars. The one-person, one-vote, standard was the topic of the Department of Justice's suppressed unanimous 73-page memo favoring complainants, this memo having surfaced only last week; and rumor had it the governor dispatched state gendarmes to arrest some complainant senators at the court in Laredo and bring them forcibly into the chamber of the senate in order to attain quorum and, thence, obtain a majority rule to change chamber redistricting supermajority requirement to a simple majority to redistrict; we recall ten senators were in exile out of state for four weeks to deprive the TX senate of quorum. Sen. Whitmire returned to the chamber of his own volition ending the exile standoff hours before the arrest could occur in Laredo. Of course, there are still undecided campaign finance questions involving the subsequent election. But the middecenium redistrict was recently defeated in a CA initiative; so SCOTUS would like to address the political strategy now to obviate the need to face it later. And the enumerated strange events surrounding the TX redistrict all tend to magnify some overall sense of hyperpoliticization of the gerrymander process. Even given the history of both Chief Justice Roberts and nominee-Justice Alito having opposed the TX redistrict complaints prior, the case as heard in April 2006 argument should prove an interesting test of the mettle of the newly configured bench on the Supreme Court. I appreciate Mr. Denniston's careful assessment of the decision today to hear the TX case. While it appears the Supreme Court opts to allow very narrow argument, there are numerous impactful related events that probably drew the Justices into curiosity about the particulars. The one-person, one-vote, standard was the topic of the Department of Justice’s suppressed unanimous 73-page memo favoring complainants, this memo having surfaced only last week; and rumor had it the governor dispatched state gendarmes to arrest some complainant senators at the court in Laredo and bring them forcibly into the chamber of the senate in order to attain quorum and, thence, obtain a majority rule to change chamber redistricting supermajority requirement to a simple majority to redistrict; we recall ten senators were in exile out of state for four weeks to deprive the TX senate of quorum. Sen. Whitmire returned to the chamber of his own volition ending the exile standoff hours before the arrest could occur in Laredo. Of course, there are still undecided campaign finance questions involving the subsequent election. But the middecenium redistrict was recently defeated in a CA initiative; so SCOTUS would like to address the political strategy now to obviate the need to face it later. And the enumerated strange events surrounding the TX redistrict all tend to magnify some overall sense of hyperpoliticization of the gerrymander process. Even given the history of both Chief Justice Roberts and nominee-Justice Alito having opposed the TX redistrict complaints prior, the case as heard in April 2006 argument should prove an interesting test of the mettle of the newly configured bench on the Supreme Court. I appreciate Mr. Denniston’s careful assessment of the decision today to hear the TX case.

]]>