From all of the articles and reports below, what is likely to happen in the Texas redistricting cases? No one knows for sure, but it appears from oral argument comments the following is the most likely scenario:
1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection, First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) —apparently this leaves Vieth in place, because it does not appear that Justice Kennedy was signalling he’s ready to vote for nonjusticiablity
2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person, one vote because of the failure to use updated census data
3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice Kennedy’s vote)
4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority to affirmatively reject that stand).
Here are the reports I’ve seen:
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post (and this Dana Milbank column reporting that Justice Ginburg napped during 15 minutes of the 2 hour afternoon argument)
Los Angeles Times
USA Today
Texas newspapers: here, here, here, and here
Dahlia Lithwick (Slate)
Law.com
Roll Call (which seemed to believe a statement by Justice Scalia was made by Justice Kennedy)
Ned Foley (on the claims involving districts 23, 24, 25)
Brad Smith (at the electronic roundable)
Bob Bauer (on the Texas and Vermont cases and political competition)
My earlier roundup of oral argument reports, including this report from Lyle Denniston)