Supreme Court upholds all but one of Texas’ legislative districts that were found racially discriminatory |

Supreme Court upholds all but one of Texas’ legislative districts that were found racially discriminatory

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

AUSTIN, Texas — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower court ruling that found a number of Texas congressional and statehouse districts were discriminatory and needed to be redrawn.

With the exception of House District 90 in Fort Worth, held by Democrat Ramon Romero, the court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the other 10 statehouse districts and two congressional districts ruled discriminatory by a district court in San Antonio were lawful.

The ruling is a major victory for the state, which had argued its maps could not be discriminatory because lawmakers drawing them followed the road map laid out by the San Antonio district court. The lower court’s ruling would have opened up inroads for further Democratic growth in the state’s statehouse and congressional maps.

“The court rightly recognized that the Constitution protects the right of Texans to draw their own legislative districts, and rejected the misguided efforts by unelected federal judges to wrest control of Texas elections from Texas voters,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a written statement. “This is a huge win for the Constitution, Texas, and the democratic process. Once again, Texans have the power to govern themselves.”

While arguing the case in April, the more liberal Supreme Court justices had questioned whether they should have jurisdiction.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.