Legal Document

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 11–713, 11–714 and 11–715 RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR TEXAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS 11–713 v. SHANNON PEREZ AL WENDY DAVIS AL. APPEAL FROM DISTRICT FOR WESTERN TEXAS [January 20, 2012] PER CURIAM. The 2010 census showed an enormous increase Texas’ population, with over four million new residents. That growth required State redraw its electoral districts for Congress, Senate, House Representatives, comply Constitution’s one-person, one-vote rule. See Georgia Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 488, n. 2 (2003). also had create additional congres- PERRY sional seats it received. Texas a “covered jurisdiction” under Section 5 Voting Rights Act 1965. 79 Stat. 439, 42 §1973c(a); 28 CFR pt. 51, App. (2011). suspends all changes covered jurisdiction’s election procedures, including district lines, until those submitted approved by three-judge District Columbia, Attorney Gen- eral. Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One Holder, 557 193, 198 (2009). process, known as preclearance, requires jurisdiction demonstrate proposed change “neither has purpose nor will have effect denying abridging right vote on account race color.” §1973c(a). been emphatic map cannot used conduct precleared. See, e.g., Clark Roemer, 500 646, 652 (1991). day after completing plans, them Columbia preclearance. preclearance process remains ongoing. was unsuccessful bid summary judgment, trial scheduled coming weeks. Meanwhile, various plaintiffs—appellees here—brought suit Texas, claiming State’s newly enacted plans violate Constitu- tion §2 Act.1 Appellees alleged, inter alia, discriminate against Latinos African-Americans dilute their voting strength, notwithstanding fact accounted three-quarters —————— prohibits “any political subdivision” from impos- ing practice “which results denial abridgement citizen §1973(a). 3 population since 2000. A panel Western convened. §2284. court heard argument held respect plain- tiffs’ claims, but withheld judgment pending resolution court. Cf. Branch Smith, 538 254, 283–285 (2003) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). As 2012 primaries approached, became increas- ingly likely would not receive time elections. And old lines could used, because rendered inconsistent requirement. It thus fell devise interim Connor Finch, 431 407, 414–415 (1977). After receiving proposals parties holding extensive hearings, issued plans. unanimously agreed Senate plan, Judge Smith dissented congressional asked this stay appeal, arguing they were unnecessarily granted noted probable jurisdic- tion. ___ Redistricting “primarily duty responsibility State.” Chapman Meier, 420 1, 27 (1975). failure plan gain pre- clearance prior upcoming does not, itself, require take up state legislature’s task. because, most circumstances, last simply receives But if intervening event—most commonly, here, census—renders current unusable, must undertake “unwelcome obliga- 4 tion” creating plan. Connor, supra, at 415. Even then, already give sufficient structure court’s endeavor. Where shifts relatively small, need make only minor obvious adjustments existing here scale appears sweeping dis- tricts. In areas where so large no semblance plan’s can offers little guidance drawing map. problem perhaps adding districts: gives suggestion should placed. addition, experience shown difficulty defining neutral legal principles area, redistrict- ordinarily involves criteria standards weighed evaluated elected branches exercise judgment. Miller Johnson, 515 900, 915–916 (1995); White Weiser, 412 783, 795–796 (1973). Thus, tricts source which look, forced sort policy judg- ments courts are, best, ill suited. To avoid being compelled such otherwise stand- ardless decisions, recently drafting reflects place how shift ones response massive growth. observed “faced neces- sity judicial order, court, general rule, guided legislative policies underlying” plan—even one itself unen- forceable—“to extent do lead violations Constitution Act.” Abrams 521 74, (1997) (holding properly declined defer cleared predominant factor). For example, White, equal challenge, reversed Court’s choice choose more closely resembling even though principle. Similarly, Upham Seamon, although whole denied §5 directed “defer judgments [state] reflect,” insofar involved found meet standard. 456 37, 40–41 (1982) (per curiam). Whitcomb Chavis, 403 124, 160–161 (1971) (equal protection challenge). prevents implemented mean disregarded On contrary, serves starting point provides important helps ensure appro- priately confines maps Act, without displacing legitimate own preferences. making use must, course, care incorporate into defects Abrams, 85–86; 797. faces challenges still except likelihood success merits. Plain- tiffs seeking injunction statute 6 normally succeed merits challenge law. Winter Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 7, 20 (2008). There reason plaintiffs defeat behind redistricting legislation local court—here, Texas—will ultimately decide claims Constitution, well equipped apply familiar calculus somewhat different. sought allows determine whether complies §5. Consistent design, we clear address challenges. Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 385 (1971). therefore careful prejudge proceedings. sume neither effort preclear fail. prejudging satisfied taking unless reflect aspects stand reasonable probability failing clearance. “reasonable probability” means context insub- stantial. standard ensures deprived provided due respects prerogative responsible determination. adequately bal- ances unique scheme sovereignty 7 constructing “serious constitutional questions” raised §5’s intru- sion sovereignty. Austin, U.S., 204. Those concerns exacerbated wholly ignore poli- cies govern elections, believe unlawful. Appellees, however, contend demands exactly that. view, precedents received cases upon appellees rely hold adopt unpre- own. Lopez Monterey County, 519 9 (1996); McDaniel Sanchez, 452 130 (1981). They say nothing about lawful incorporated aid Indeed, ordered unobjectionable case, stated “giv[en] much Legislature’s possible.” Ohio 182. At same time, said re- quired draw “independent map” following “neutral advance interest collective public good.” Id., 169–170. “was deference plan,” instead applied determined “place interests citizens first.” 171. exceeded mission substituted concept “the good” determination serve 8 Texas,” erred. proclaiming ability “with- out regard considerations,” relied heavily Balderas 6:01cv158, 2001 LEXIS 25740 (ED Tex., Nov. 14, 2001) curiam), summarily aff’d, 536 919 (2002). there turn. Without benefit distinctly judgments, per- haps design based notion good. Because assist it, license cast aside vital aid. Some specific seem pay adequate attention policies, others propriety unclear. exam- ple, North East followed cies. 173; id., 25–26. Although entire challenged proceed- ings, apparently serious allegation discrimina- tory intent effect. 187, 4. correct regions. then altered achieve de minimis popula- variations—even claim variations 171, 8. absence flaw basis modify plan.2 court-drawn higher acceptable variation than legislatively erred refusing split precincts (called “voter tabulation districts” Texas) 90, 102–103. alone prevented plan—which freely splits cincts—in many chal- lenges details. 102–103, 116, 24. motivated well- intentioned desire save expense reconfiguring precincts, upcom- election. 109. accepted costs splitting accom- plish goals, law expressly recasting when redistricting. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §42.032 (West 2010). If chosen accept burden changing decision lawful, warrant decision. Of case reexamine issue light exigencies caused impending ignored certain individual districts. drew 77 resembles enact- ed previous census. did alleged violations. 174–175. allegations plausible, less succeed. Nor finding relevant stood maps. 98 (1997). explained “stricter standard[s]” triggered incorporates unchallenged portions 42– 43 10 see 6. determination, Dis- trict resemble approach Congressional 33, disregards ap- pear strong ing. 600–601; 12–14. seems appropriate, grounds concern path there. suggests intentionally drawn 33 “minority coalition opportunity district” expected two different minority groups band together form majority. 147. ambiguous point—some suggest deliberately designed district, parts solely area. Compare 146–147 (“Because occurred Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex attributable minorities, district”), 144 (“The nowhere performance above benchmark”). set rather reflected growth, doing so. Bartlett Strickland, 556 13–15 (2009) (plurality opinion). unclear appropriate ards elec- tions, orders implementing vacated, remanded further proceedings con- sistent opinion. 11 shall forthwith. ordered. THOMAS, concurring PEREZ, DAVIS, JUSTICE proceeds premise necessary part unenforceable lack Ante, 1–3. my timely obtain obstacle implementation, I previously explained, unconstitutional. 212 (THOMAS, dissent- part). lenged Federal Con- stitution yet Accordingly, duly vacate remand consider appellees’ constitu- tional ordinary course.

Classification Label: 1