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.

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.”

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.

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.

Judge Thomas Griffith

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.

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.

Florida state Rep. Alan Hays (R)

Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, rekindled the divisive debate over illegal immigration when he told the Senate committee reviewing a series of congressional redistricting plans that “before we design a district anywhere in the state of Florida for Hispanic voters, we need to ascertain that they are citizens of the United States.”

“We all know there are many Hispanic-speaking people in Florida that are not legal,’’ he said. “And I just don’t think it’s right that we try to draw a district that encompasses people that really have no business voting anyhow,” he said.

Of course, Puerto Ricans are American citizens from birth, as the territory is part of the U.S. “We’ve never had a problem with illegal voting in Lake County, no way,’’ said Lake County Supervisor of Elections Emogen Stegall, who has worked in the election’s office for 40 years.

Hispanic lawmakers of both parties were quick to condemn Hays. Sen. Rene Garcia (R), the chairman of the Hispanic caucus, said he asked Hays for an explanation and two Democratic lawmakers demanded an apology or resignation. “He is calling on a witch hunt before a Hispanic district can be realistically considered,’’ said Rep. Janet Cruz (D). The GOP-dominated caucus met late Wednesday night to discuss the matter.

Other GOP lawmakers, however, were less concerned, with one saying Hays’ comments were “irrelevant” and another saying, “I don’t think he meant it in a way that was negative or demeaning or detrimental.”

The state has a four-decade history of violating minority voting rights that has required court intervention, Jose Garza, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the state Legislature, said today in federal court in San Antonio.

“Whether the Legislature was controlled by Democrats or Republicans, it didn’t matter,” Garza told a three-judge panel. “Redistricting was always done on the backs of minorities.” [...]

The majority-Republican Legislature redrew congressional district maps after the state grew enough to gain four seats in Congress, adding almost 4.3 million residents since 2000 according to the 2010 census. [...]

If the new map is approved, “the Legislature’s blatant racial gerrymandering will effectively prevent minority voters from having any meaningful impact on congressional elections for the next 10 years,” lawyers representing Travis County and Austin said in court papers.

Perry signed the bill with the electoral map in June, and a coalition of lawmakers, civil rights groups and county governments are suing to block it from taking effect. They accuse Perry and other Republicans of using “gerrymandering techniques such as packing and cracking of minority communities” to reduce the chances Latino candidates have of winning new seats.

Voting rights organizations point to the fact that GOP lawmakers drew very uneven, bizarrely-shaped districts as proof that the map was politically motivated. Luis Vera, a lawyer for the League of United Latin American Citizens, described them as “ridiculous shapes, with lines weaving in and out of neighborhoods and splitting hundreds of precincts throughout the state, predominantly in Latino and minority communities.”

Unfortunately, the conservatives on the Supreme Court largely abdicated any responsibility for preventing partisan legislatures from drawing district lines purely to benefit their party, so a direct challenge to the GOP’s gerrymandering is doomed to failure. Nevertheless, the justices have yet to completely eviscerate the Voting Rights Act’s protections ensuring that minorities do not lose their ability to participate in representative democracy.

If the courts strike down these newest district lines, it won’t be the first time they find fault with a redistricting plan Perry signed. In 2003, Republicans led by then-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) redrew election districts to engineer a Republican majority. Although congressional maps are typically redrawn after the census every 10 years, Democrats maintained their majority in the Texas legislature in 2000. So during the 2003 legislative session, with DeLay and Perry’s encouragement, the Republican majority began an unusual off-cycle redistricting.

In December 2005, “Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act.” The Supreme Court eventually struck down one of the Delay/Perry districts in 2006, although it left much of the map intact. Once this map went into effect, the Texas delegation shifted from a 17-15 Democratic edge to a 21-11 edge for Republicans.

But fortunately, we’ve seen several substantive efforts at redistricting reform this year. Ridding our political system of gerrymandering is an issue that puts voters ahead of incumbents and benefits both Republicans and Democrats. Ensuring more fairness and competitiveness in our elections has been pushed by people across the political spectrum, from Tea Partiers to progressives, and from establishment Republicans to establishment Democrats. Because redistricting benefits the party in power, a party’s position on the issue often depends on their status.

Thankfully, voters in a growing number of states are pushing for changes that remove — or severely restrict — politics from redistricting. Four such states are California, Florida, Iowa, and Arizona:

CALIFORNIA — For the past ten years, California has been a model of the ill-effects of partisan redistricting. A decade ago, California legislators opted to draw a new map with the primary goal of protecting incumbent officeholders. It worked beyond belief. In the following election, every single incumbent in California’s House, Senate, and congressional delegation won reelection, taking an average 69 percent of the vote. Over the ensuing decade, none of the 120 legislative seats and just one of the state’s 53 congressional seats have switched parties.

This time around, California voters opted to draw the map themselves. In November, they overwhelmingly passed Proposition 20, which turned over congressional redistricting to a citizen commission. Out of 31,000 applicants, eight Californians — including a bookstore owner, an engineer, and an insurance agent — were chosen at random last week to serve. Those eight will soon choose another six citizens to finalize the 14-member commission, which will be evenly split between five Democrats, five Republicans, and four unaffiliated voters. Together, the commission will draw a new map using “strict, nonpartisan rules.” In order to become law, the new map must be supported by at least nine of the 14 members — three Democrats, three Republicans, and three unaffiliated voters.

FLORIDA — Like California, Florida’s current map is an egregious example of gerrymandering. A perpetual swing state, Florida backed President Bush in 2004 with 52 percent of the vote and President Obama in 2008 with 51 percent of the vote. However, thanks in large part to Republican gerrymandering in 2001, the GOP’s 55 percent of the state’s congressional vote in 2010 translated into capturing 75 percent of the state’s congressional seats.

Thankfully, Florida voters passed a redistricting reform initiative in November by a whopping 25 points, despite opposition from the state Republican Party, who stood to lose a new opportunity to gerrymander the state’s districts. Now, despite a Republican governor and large majorities in the state legislature, the GOP is barred from drawing congressional districts that “favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party.”

IOWA — Iowa is a model for fair, nonpartisan redistricting. Rather than allowing legislators to pick which voters they want to represent, Iowa gives the power of redistricting to an independent body, the Legislative Services Agency. The LSA draws a map that uses specific formulas to keep districts as compact and contiguous as possible, while also preserving city and county boundaries. Where current legislators live is a factor that is prohibited from consideration. The map is then voted on in the state legislature, but if it’s rejected, the LSA is then charged with producing another map that the legislature may like less.

There are a few demographic aspects unique to Iowa that make the state’s redistricting restrictions less complicated and more apt to the type of reform it has implemented. For instance, as Stateline.org notes, “Iowa is so overwhelmingly white that it does not have to craft districts that favor minority voters, as required under the federal Voting Rights Act. Plus, Democrats and Republicans are spread pretty evenly throughout the state.” Still, Iowa’s approach is laudable and other states would do well to replicate its system.

ARIZONA — Like Iowa, Arizona employs an independent redistricting commission comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent. Instead of protecting incumbents and ensuring their reelection, the commission is charged with drawing as many competitive districts as possible while still creating compact, contiguous and fair borders. Unlike California, Arizona succeeded at prompting competitiveness in its congressional elections over the past decade. Nearly 40 percent of the state’s districts switched parties once, while a quarter switched parties twice. Rather than disenfranchising voters, Arizona has taken positive steps to ensure that its elections are representative and fair.

[T]he 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.

But of course in the House we vote by Congressional District and not by state. Yes, New York will probably lose a House seat. But at the same time, the New York State Senate flipped from Republican to Democratic control. With the state overwhelmingly Democratic in its electorate, and the state government under total Democratic control, the lost seat will almost certainly be a lost Republican seat. And by the same token, the population growth in Texas, Arizona, and Florida is being driven by growth in the Democratic-leaning Hispanic population. In all these cases, you have to look at the demographics and the redistricting process in detail, not just ask whether it’s a blue state or a red state.

Again, the GOP was unusually unpopular in 2008 and so it seems likely they’ll be more popular and do better in 2010. But the main demographic trends are against the Republicans — they’re strong with old people and weak with minorities.

State Legislature majorities are the deep foundations of national politics. They control congressional redistricting, which is important, and because they also control their own redistricting, control can be hard to reverse. Last night, “Democrats won new majorities in the Delaware House, Ohio House, Wisconsin Assembly, New York Senate, and the Nevada Senate.” That gives them control of both chambers in New York, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Delaware and shifts Ohio to an even split. Nevada and New York will be important redistricting opportunities after the next census, and given the opportunity to redraw the State Senate districts in New York it will be very difficult for the GOP to ever mount a comeback in Albany.