In addition to my initial analysis, here is what I have seen so far. Commentaries by Ned Foley; Rick Pildes; Nate Persily (Q & A on Washingtonpost.com); Adam Bonin; Bob Bauer; Gerry Hebert; League of Women Voters.
Howard Bashman links to early news coverage here and here.
More to come.
UPDATE: More commentary from
Michael Kang
Ned Foley (Part II)
Election law scholar roundtable conference call (organized by Nate Persily)
News reports from:
Christian Science Monitor
Legal Times (Tony Mauro)
Fort Worth Star Telegram
AP (updated report)
In addition, here is a query about the case I posted on the election law listserv:
Where Are Justices Souter and Ginsburg on partisan gerrymandering in Texas?
These Justices joined Justice Kennedy’s II-D, and did not join Justice Breyer’s separate opinion which would find that the Texas plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. At the end of Justice Kennedy’s II-D is the following statement:
“In sum, we disagree with appellants’ view that a legislature’s decision to override a valid, court drawn plan mid-decade is sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for identifying unconstitutional political gerrymanders. We conclude that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge.” (slip op. 16, emphasis added)
I initially read the decision of Justices Souter and Ginsburg to sign II-D as simply a rejection of the mid-decade redistricting point. But some have argued to me that the sentence I’ve quoted show that they also agree the Texas plan was not a partisan gerrymander (presumably under the standards Justice Souter or other dissenters announced in Vieth).
Any thoughts?