OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court opted not to get involved in a case involving a Republican-drawn commissioners map in Galveston County, Texas, while lower courts deliberate the scope of the historic Voting Rights Act, the
A federal judge found the County Commissioners Court map to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; however, the judge’s decision will remain in effect until next year, when a federal appeals court reviews the case, according to Tuesday’s order.
As county officials seek to redraw electoral maps and solidify power following the 2020 census, the dispute has captured the attention of voting rights experts throughout the county, CNN reported.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, argued that the decision could impact the 2024 elections.
“Even though this case is only about a local district map in Galveston, it has much broader implications. The (5th US Circuit) court of appeals justified letting the unlawful map stay in place in a way that will make it much harder, going forward, for plaintiffs in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas to persuade any federal judge to block an unlawful map except in very short windows after elections take place,” Vladeck said.
Skeptics argue that Republican officials’ actions in Galveston, which they characterize as an extreme racial gerrymander that destroyed the county’s sole precinct with a black and Latino majority, could be replicated nationwide, in defiance of the Voting Rights Act. Three liberal justices openly disagreed with the court’s ruling.
“In imposing a different map acknowledged to violate current law—on the theory that the Circuit might someday change that law—the Court of Appeals went far beyond its proper authority,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a brief dissent that her two liberal colleagues joined.
The conflict arose after the Republican-majority Galveston County commissioners adopted a redistricting plan that governs the four county commissions in November 2021. The plan eliminated Precinct 3, the county’s sole precinct with a black or Latino majority, for many years.
According to voting rights organizations, Texas needed the Department of Justice’s pre-clearance for any map changes made before 2013. Preclearance was previously required but is now unnecessary due to a provision of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down.
Some challenged the county maps, claiming they made it harder for black and Latino voters to choose candidates for certain positions. One such resident is Terry Petteway of Galveston; her home was formerly in Precinct 3.
A district court found that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the residents were successful in having it blocked. To have a legitimate map in place before the December 11th candidate filing deadline for the November 2024 election, the court-mandated a remedial process.
The original maps were deemed to be “fundamentally inconsistent” with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, according to US District Court Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown. According to him, the maps were “stark and jarring” and changed Precinct 3’s demographic from the most diverse to the least diverse.
The court ruled that there was no valid reason to make significant changes to Precinct 3 and that the implemented plan was cruel and outrageous.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to delay the district court’s decision until next May when the entire court will examine the case—long after the state’s primary election in March.
In a separate ruling earlier this week, the Supreme Court declined an opportunity to hear a challenge from a Catholic sidewalk counselor in New York and refused to consider overturning its precedent allowing protective “bubble” zones around abortion clinics and their clients.
The nation’s highest court refused to consider abortion rights activist Debra Vitagliano’s appeal of a lower court’s dismissal of her case challenging a Westchester County ordinance that restricted demonstrations outside of abortion facilities.
Vitagliano claimed that the law, which was approved in June 2022 and then revoked two months later, infringed upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Washington Examiner reported.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which was representing Vitagliano, received support from several anti-abortion and religious organizations as well as fourteen Republican state attorneys general.
“There is no abortion exception to the First Amendment,” wrote the attorneys general in support of Vitagliano. “Sidewalk counseling is not second-class speech, and government restrictions on it must meet the same standards as every other content-based restriction.”
On Monday, though, the justices announced briefly that they would not be hearing the case, and no dissenting opinions were included.
