Jun 28, 2006 -- Statement of J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center & Counsel for the Texas Congressional Democrats in the Texas Redistricting Lawsuits

Today's decision shows this was a challenge worth bringing. The fact that nine Justices filed six different opinions, each with subparts, says a lot about how splintered and difficult these issues were for the Court. Ultimately, justice and fairness is always a goal worth pursuing, and the fact that the Court found the map violated the rights of Latino voters in South Texas shows the fight was worth it.

This case was never about officeholders or incumbents, it wasn't even about Democrats and Republicans. It was about protecting the voting rights of all Texans, particularly minority voters.

While I am disappointed the Court did not find a mid-decade redistricting done solely for partisan gain was unconstitutional, today's decision does leave open the possibility that in some future case a claim of partisan gerrymandering might prevail. Five Justices still believe a partisan gerrymandering challenge to a redistricting map may still be brought and they have left open the possibility that a standard could emerge in some future case that would give legs to such a claim.

This case was an extreme example of a partisan gerrymander, and the Court says today that replacing a perfectly valid map in mid-decade solely for partisan gain is not impermissible under the Constitution. In doing so, the decision could open the floodgates for partisan re-redistricting. Today's decision points to the very serious need for meaningful redistricting reform so that independent commissions, and not partisan gerrymandering politicians, get to draw the lines.

To view the decision in this case, click here.

# # #