Texas redistricting resembles an enormous onion that sets more eyes watering each time another of its pungent layers gets peeled back.
By agreeing Friday to hear arguments on the legality of court-drawn interim voting maps for the 2012 elections, the U.S. Supreme Court only spread the joy.All that's certain is that uncertainty will continue well into campaign season. Candidates for the Texas House and Senate and 36 seats in Congress don't know whether to file for re-election yet much less what district to file in.County election administrators across the state don't know when they'll be holding which elections or how many times they'll have to redraw voting precincts.Voters don't know ... well, they seem like a mere corollary to all the political and legal skirmishing, don't they?A certain amount of turmoil was as predictable as the overreaching that historically has characterized redistricting in Texas. The party controlling the Legislature skews the voting districts to its advantage; disgruntlement and lawsuits ensue; courts direct reconfiguration of some lines, occasionally with election delays.But this year's edition continues to unveil complication upon complication.The pace accelerated when a Washington, D.C., federal court refused to preclear Texas' legislative and congressional maps (a requirement before they can be used) and decided to hold a trial, which wasn't going to be resolved in time for the March primary filing period.But candidates needed to know what districts to run in and get their paperwork in, so the D.C. court told a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio to draw interim maps. (The San Antonio court is overseeing a collection of lawsuits challenging the voting plans approved by the Legislature earlier this year.)When the San Antonio court's maps looked remarkably different from the Legislature's, with new Hispanic-influence districts likely to elect more Democrats to Congress, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott asked the Supreme Court to stop those plans from being used.The state's basic premise is that a federal court is interfering with the prerogative of the political majority. Of course, the counter to that is that majority will doesn't get to prevail if it tramples fundamental rights of the minority.The real conundrum is that no court has found the Legislature's maps in violation of the Voting Rights Act or Constitution -- and no court has upheld the maps' legality, either.The practical effect of the latest developments could give taxpayers heartburn. The San Antonio court set a hearing for today on the timing of 2012 elections. One possibility is to hold primary balloting for president and statewide offices in March as scheduled and delay races involving the contested maps until those boundaries are settled. When that would occur is anyone's guess.Running two sets of elections could double the costs for the state (which helps the political parties fund primaries and runoffs) as well as for counties (which pay for early voting, redrawing voting precincts and mailing voter registration certificates).In the legal briefs due to the Supreme Court next week and the arguments scheduled for Jan. 9, there probably will be talk about deference to legislative preference; voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice; the operation of neutral redistricting principles; and the nooks and crannies of voting rights.Ultimately, though, the Supreme Court will issue a decision that clearly impacts the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats in Texas -- and potentially in Congress. So both sides are hoping for a high-court win, which makes any complaints about "unelected federal judges" injecting themselves into Texas' electoral politics sound pretty much like balderdash.Have more to add? News tip? Tell us
