Letters to the Editor: Supreme Court’s opinion upholding Texas’ new maps is ‘blatant sophistry’
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Supreme Court upholds Texas redistricting map to gain five GOP House seats, overriding lower court’s ruling that it constituted racial gerrymandering.
- Critics argue the decision effectively blocks future redistricting challenges before elections, undermining voting rights protections and constitutional safeguards.
- The ruling raises fairness questions as both Republican-controlled Texas and Democratic-controlled California recently have redrawn maps for partisan advantage.
To the editor: Contributing writer Erwin Chemerinsky’s recent op-ed should be required reading for all who support our constitutional democracy (“The Supreme Court’s 3 terrible reasons for allowing Texas’ racially rigged map,” Dec. 5).
There are so many things wrong with the Supreme Court’s blocking of the lower court’s reasoned opinion that ruled the Texas redistricting map unconstitutional. As Chemerinsky points out, the three reasons given by the Supreme Court in its unsigned opinion are blatant sophistry and result in effectively making it impossible for anyone to challenge a legislature’s action in redistricting anytime in advance of a midterm congressional election.
What’s more, this decision comes from the court’s “shadow docket,” meaning it is rendered without briefing or oral argument — but nonetheless gives a green light to the challenged redistricting map for this upcoming election.
The rationale that a map drawn for purely partisan political purposes might be constitutionally permissible is stunning. In 2019, in Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts (in upholding a redistricting map) wrote: “Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles’ does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.” But this is where we are.
James Stiven, Cardiff
This writer is a retired U.S. magistrate judge.
..
To the editor: Chemerinsky is outraged that Texas is allowed to redraw its congressional maps, which are designed to elect five more Republicans to the House of Representatives. Would it be proper to ban Texas from doing this after California has already found legal avenues to do something similar? I’m not sure how all states can be forced to draw districts that are reasonable and fair, but Chemerinsky seems to lament the gerrymandering practice in Texas without mentioning complaints when it happens in California.
David Waldowski, Laguna Woods
..
To the editor: Although Chemerinsky accurately describes the Supreme Court’s stated reasons for the decision, the actual rationale was probably much more cynical.
First, Texas racially rigged its election district maps to favor Trump in the midterms. Second, California rigged its own maps in response, but did it better by putting it to statewide vote. Lastly, the Texas stunt got challenged in court on solid constitutional grounds and looked like it might lose, so that the whole thing might backfire against our man President Trump. And, well, we can’t have that, can we?
Ronald Ellsworth, La Mesa
