Informed Speculation

From all indications, Texas Democrats have failed in their bid to get the Supreme Court to rule against the 2002 redistricting that is the backstory to the Tom Delay case:

The current case, arising from a Texas-sized tale of partisan maneuvering that helped force U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay from his post as House majority leader, could have major implications for the 2006 congressional elections.

The conflict began after Republicans gained a majority in the Texas Legislature in 2002. The next year, they began to redraw the state’s congressional district map, eight years earlier than usual. The redrawing was orchestrated by DeLay, who was indicted last fall on a charge stemming from his fundraising for state candidates that helped Republicans win control of the Legislature.

With the new congressional map, Republicans gained six seats from Democrats in the 2004 elections. That gave the GOP control of the Texas delegation with 21 of its 32 seats.

On Wednesday, several justices seemed to suggest that gerrymanders are an inevitable result of elections. When Paul Smith, a lawyer for the Texas Democrats, argued that Republicans were driven by partisan goals in drawing their map, Justice Antonin Scalia exclaimed sarcastically, “Wow, that’s a surprise!”

Other justices who have been open to past complaints about gerrymandering suggested that the Texas case might not warrant judicial intervention. “It is impossible to take partisanship out of the political process,” Justice David Souter said.

Kennedy noted that Republicans had claimed that earlier maps crafted by Democrat-led legislatures were similarly partisan, and he suggested that a party that takes over a statehouse should be able to change a map that it believes was overly partisan for the other side. “It seems to me very dangerous for this court to take away that control mechanism,” he said.

Nina Perales, an attorney for minority voters who say the GOP map violated U.S. voting rights law, told the justices that a mostly Latino district was divided to ensure the re-election of a Republican not favored by most Latinos, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla. She said voters’ race was considered as lawmakers tried to aid Bonilla.

Chief Justice John Roberts was among those skeptical of Perales’ arguments. He noted that the district in question, which had been about 60% Latino, is still about 50% Latino. “You’re asking us to draw a very fine line,” Roberts said, as Perales declined to say what percentage of Latino voters in the district would have been acceptable to her side.

The case has been a non-stop topic of conversation for local progressive rag The Austin Chronicle – I suspect they will be none-too-pleased at the outcome (never say never, though – there has been no ruling as of yet)…although Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUSblog thinks that District 23 may be invalidated:

Because a number of the Justices — including, notably, the potential swing voter, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — seemed troubled about the legislature’s treatment of Latino voters in southwest Texas, that part of the “DeLay map” appeared to be in some trouble, perhaps necessitating some corrective that would affect adjoining districts, too, but not all 32 in the state. The overall plan, under challenge since it was crafted in 2003, appeared not to be vulnerable.

UPDATE 1:02 p.m.: Chris Cillizza takes up the story at The Fix:

If, as expected, the Supreme Court makes minor changes to the Texas map rather than invalidating the entirety of it, Democrats will continue to face a tough task in picking up the 15 seats they need this fall to reclaim a majority. If the lines remain essentially unchanged, only two races in the state are likely to be competitive — the reelection contests of DeLay in the 22nd District and Democrat Chet Edwards in the 17th District.