As ThinkProgress previously explained, the state of Texas currently does not have any legally valid congressional maps. Because it gained four new congressional seats, it could not use its existing maps even if the Constitution would permit it to do so. The map drawn by the state legislature has not been “pre-cleared” as is required under the Voting Rights Act because of concerns that it discriminates on the basis of race, and an interim map drawn by federal judges in Texas was blocked by the Supreme Court late last year pending a more complete review of that interim map by the justices.

Many voting rights advocates feared that the conservative Supreme Court would use this case to make sweeping changes to the laws protecting voters, either by eliminating the judiciary’s authority to draw interim maps such as the ones at issue here or potentially even by striking down key parts of the Voting Rights Act. Fortunately, those fears proved unfounded this time around. The crux of their holding is that the lower court erred in drawing these particular maps because they did not treat the state legislature’s preferred maps as a baseline and depart from that baseline only when necessary to rescue the map from illegality:

In [the challenger's] view, this Court’s precedents require district courts to ignore any state plan that has not received §5 preclearance. But the cases upon which appellees rely hold only that a district court may not adopt an unprecleared plan as its own. They say nothing about whether a district court may take guidance from the lawful policies incorporated insuch a plan for aid in drawing an interim map. Indeed, in Upham this Court ordered a District Court to defer to the unobjectionable aspects of a State’s plan even though that plan had already been denied preclearance.

In this case, the District Court stated that it had “giv[en] effect to as much of the policy judgments in the Legislature’s enacted map as possible.” At the same time, however, the court said that it was required to draw an “independent map” following “neutral principles that advance the interest of the collective public good.” In the court’s view, it “was not required to give any deference to the Legislature’s enacted plan,” and it instead applied principles that it determined “place the interests of the citizens of Texas first.” To the extent the District Court exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of “the collective public good” for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve “the interests of the citizens of Texas,” the court erred.

The partisan upshot of this decision is that it is probably good news for Republicans. In an earlier case called Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court largely abdicated oversight over politically motivated gerrymanders, thus enabling political parties to be as aggressive as they want in drawing maps that achieve their partisan goals. Because the Texas legislature is overwhelming dominated by Republicans, today’s decision requiring the lower court to use their map as the baseline in drawing an interim map will increase the likelihood that partisan gerrymandering intended to favor the GOP will remain present in the interim map the lower court eventually produces.

After a federal court threw out Texas Republicans’ redistricting map this month because it discriminated against minorities, a three-judge panel today released a new map that will significantly boost minority representation in Congress.

Though the Republican-controlled Texas legislature was originally tasked with drawing the state’s new congressional districts, the map they produced was not only highly-partisan, but discriminated against the state’s burgeoning minority population. Texas, which is one of a handful of states that must get federal approval under the Voting Rights Act for new redistricting maps, saw its proposal nixed by the District Court of DC two weeks ago. As a result, three federal judges in San Antonio were charged with creating a new map for next year’s elections.

Their proposal today is far more equitable for Texas’ growing minority population, particularly Latinos. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund praised the new plan, calling it an “important victory for Latinos in Texas.” It creates a new “Latino opportunity district” in South Texas (TX-35) where Latino voters won’t be disenfranchised or split up, but rather enabled to elect a candidate of their choosing. In total, four new districts will boost minority representation.

Given the Texas’ Latino surge, it’s no surprise that the original map was thrown out in favor one that was fairer to minorities. Over the past decade, two-thirds of Texas’ population growth has been Latinos, while blacks accounted for another 22 percent. Whites increased by just four percent since 2000.

This population boom earned Texas four new congressional seats, the largest gain of any state. Currently, Republicans enjoy a 23-9 advantage among Texas’ 32 seats, but redistricting analyst Charles Kuffner did a thorough examination of the new districts and predicted that after the dust settles next year, Democrats would gain four seats. The Houston Chronicle, meanwhile, predicted a possible three-seat pickup for Democrats.

Interested parties have until Friday to comment on the court’s proposed map. Kuffner predicts the map “will be finalized by Monday the 28th, which is the opening of filing season, though I hear that could possibly get pushed back a day.”

Earlier this month, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) strongarmed the state legislature into impeaching and removing the chair of that state’s bipartisan redistricting commission. According to Brewer, by drawing many congressional districts where there would be competitive races between Democratic and Republican candidates, the election official, Colleen Mathis, somehow engaged in “neglect of duty and gross misconduct.” Just over two weeks later, the state supreme court struck down this impeachment, holding that Brewer failed to show the “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or inability to discharge the duties of office” required to justify an impeachment. Apparently, not drawing maps that maximize GOP victories isn’t actually gross misconduct.

Never one to let a small thing like the Arizona Constitution get in the way of a good power grab, however, Brewer is now preparing for a second round:

Gov. Jan Brewer may make another attempt as early as this coming week to fire the chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

The governor said Friday her attorneys are studying the brief order issued late Thursday by the Arizona Supreme Court voiding the governor’s Nov. 1 decision to fire Colleen Mathis. She said all options are on the table – including recrafting the letter she sent to Mathis firing her in a way that might pass court muster. [...] In their brief order, the justices said that Brewer’s Nov. 1 letter to Mathis, “does not demonstrate substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office.” Those are the only reasons in the constitution that a governor can fire a commissioner.

Brewer noted, though, the justices did not say what would be legal and how she could fire Mathis in a way to satisfy the court.

People who actually care about the rule of law can only hope that the state legislature would balk at such a transparent and obvious power grab, but they probably shouldn’t hold their breath. Every single one of the state senate’s 21 GOP senators voted with Brewer to illegally remove Mathis from the commission the first time around.

In a stunning reversal, the Arizona Supreme Court tonight reversed an attempted power grab by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and her Republican colleagues in the state legislature.

Last month, the state Senate took up Brewer’s push to impeach Colleen Mathis, the chairwoman of Arizona’s independent bipartisan redistricting commission. Even Brewer herself couldn’t explain how Mathis had exhibited “neglect of duty and gross misconduct,” the only grounds for impeachment in Arizona. Indeed, Mathis’ only real “crime” appears to be that she led a commission which drew a new congressional map with more competitive districts than had existed previously.

However, justice prevailed tonight as the Arizona Supreme Court rebuffed Brewer and decided to reinstate Mathis to lead the commission:

The Arizona Supreme Court Thursday evening reinstated the chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, rebuffing Gov. Jan Brewer’s unprecedented action earlier this month.

The ruling came less than three hours after the court heard arguments on the case, which revolved around the extent to which the commission is free of outside political interference.

The court decided the governor’s Nov. 1 removal letter to Colleen Coyle Mathis did not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or inability to discharge the duties of office.”

Now Mathis and the commission will resume their duty to finalize Arizona’s new congressional district maps. As Daily Kos notes, the group “published draft congressional and legislative maps last month, and since then, the commissioners have been hearing public feedback and have indicated that they plan to make changes to the maps in response.”

Barring any more unconstitutional power grabs from Brewer, the commission will be able to finalize the map in advance of next year’s election.

The Voting Rights Act requires many parts of the country to “preclear” any changes to their voting law to ensure that those changes do not discriminate on the basis of race. Either the Department of Justice or the federal courts in DC can preclear a new voting law, but states have almost always sought preclearence in the past from the Justice Department because it is both better equipped to evaluate new laws than the overburdened federal courts and better able to do so quickly.

Despite this fact, a few GOP-led states turned to the federal courts this year either to make a political statement about their distrust of the Obama Administration or because they actually believed some of the paranoid fantasies voter suppression attorneys told them about the Administration’s plans to block Republican-friendly policies. One of these states was Texas, which just received a very disappointing answer from George W. Bush-appointed judges Thomas Griffith and Rosemary Collyer:

The three-judge panel appointed to hear the case received extensive briefing and held lengthy oral argument on November 2, 2011. If any one of the plans is not precleared by this Court at this stage in the proceedings, the District Court for the Western District of Texas must designate a substitute interim plan for the 2012 election cycle by the end of November. Therefore, the Court issues its Order promptly and will issue a memorandum opinion hereafter.

Having carefully considered the entire record and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes that the State of Texas used an improper standard or methodology to determine which districts afford minority voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and that there are material issues of fact in dispute that prevent this Court from entering declaratory judgment that the three redistricting plans meet the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

We eagerly await Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) outraged statement accusing two George W. Bush appointed judges of unvarnished partisanship by denying preclearence to Texas’ map.

Unlike most states, where congressional district are drawn by partisan lawmakers with an obvious interest in ensuring that their party comes out ahead, Arizona uses a much more sensible process where a bipartisan commission draws lines that are not intended to favor either party. This fundamental fairness irks Jan Brewer, so she’s laying the groundwork for a truly drastic response:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is trying to impeach her state’s independent redistricting commission because it recommended political districts that do not disproportionately favor Republicans.

Brewer’s actual charge is that the commission—composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent—tried to “elevate ‘competitiveness’ over other goals,” an outcome that is apparently now synonymous with “neglect of duty and gross misconduct” in her mind.

To execute this power grab, Brewer is expected to call a special legislative session as soon as today to impeach the commission’s independent chair Colleen Mathis. Actually removing one or more commissioners will require a two-thirds vote of the state Senate, which has a 21 to 9 GOP majority.