Case Summary

Texas’s legislature was unable to pass a congressional redistricting plan after the 2000 Census, so a three-judge federal district court panel adopted its own interim plan for the 2002 elections. In 2003, the newly Republican-controlled legislature enacted a new plan that was used in the 2004 elections, and thereafter several federal lawsuits were filed challenging the plan as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment and Equal Protection Clause and as diluting certain minority populations’ voting strength in violation of § 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (“VRA”). Plaintiffs’ § 2 claims focused on District 23, which went from having a 57.5% Latino citizen voting-age population (“CVAP”) to 46% under the new plan, and District 25, which aimed to offset changes to District 23 by captured two different Latino communities in central and southern Texas to form a new majority-Latino district with a 55% Latino CVAP.

  • On June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held that District 23 violated § 2 since, prior to being redrawn, the Thornburg v. Gingles preconditions were satisfied such that Latino voters there could’ve formed an “opportunity district.” The Court explained § 2 does not provide a right to a district that isn’t “reasonably compact” and, therefore, the State’s new District 25 could not justify their dismantling of District 23, which was reasonably compact, for § 2 compliance purposes. Unlike the “compactness” inquiry for equal protection purposes, which looks to the size of the district itself, the compactness inquiry for § 2 purposes looks to the geographic proximity of the relevant minority population itself and their social and economic needs. Applying that standard here, the Court found the “enormous geographical distance” between the two Latino communities in District 25, along with their distinct needs and interests, rendered District 25 noncompact for § 2 purposes and ordered that District 23 be redrawn.

Significance: (1) In the context of a vote dilution claim under § 2, the "compactness" inquiry looks to the geographical, social and demographical cohesiveness and characteristics of a minority group within a district, while in the Equal Protection context, the "compactness" inquiry examines the relative compactness of the district's shape itself; (2) § 2 does not allow a state to create a non-compact minority-opportunity district in order to "compensate" for the elimination of a compact minority-opportunity district in a different part of the state.

Case Library

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division - 2:03-cv-354 [formerly Session v. Perry] [consolidated with 2:03-cv-380]

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 03-9644 [formerly Henderson v. Perry, 543 U.S. 941 (2004)] [together with Nos. 03-1391; 03-1396; 03-1399; 03-1400]

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division - 2:03-cv-354 [consolidated with 2:03-cv-380; 2:03-cv-356; 2:03-cv-367; 2:03-cv-380; 6:01-cv-158; 6:01-cv-218; 6:01-cv-231]

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 05-204 [548 U.S. 399 (2006)] [consolidated with Nos. 05-254; 05-276; 05-439]