Last week, the new district maps that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law were blocked in the lower courts.
The maps were also blocked at the appellate level in a ruling that included a Donald Trump-appointed judge.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, however, has stayed the lower court order for now, pending a response from the plaintiff.
Earlier this year, Trump reportedly asked Abbott to pursue a redrawing of the state’s congressional maps, and he obliged.
This was blatant gerrymandering designed to offset Democrat-led states that had similarly manipulated maps, but it was still gerrymandering.
The irony of it all was that Democrats in states like California and Illinois were outraged by the Texas move, even though they already gerrymandered their own maps, especially Illinois, which boasted some of the worst district boundaries in the nation.
The maps in Texas were immediately challenged in court.
As I had predicted, the maps were blocked in the lower courts, with Democrats latching on to the narrative that the maps were racially gerrymandered to the detriment of minorities.
I noted above that the maps had indeed been gerrymandered, but the idea that they were racially manipulated would rely on the assumption that all black voters are Democrats, which, I can assure you, in the state of Texas, is not the case.
The maps were also blocked at the appellate level in a 2-1 ruling, with a Trump-appointed judge siding with a liberal judge to defeat the new boundaries. The dissenting vote came from a Ronald Reagan-appointed judge, who absolutely blistered the outcome in writing.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he would fight the decision at the Supreme Court level.
This weekend, it was announced that Alito had stayed the lower court order pending a reply from the plaintiffs in the case.
Now, a lot of websites are touting this as a huge win for Trump, Abbott, and Texas conservatives, but it is not. It is a temporary stay that does not address any constitutional issues regarding the case itself. Point being, there is no need for celebration just yet, and you can ignore all the outrage from Democrats and liberals because, in the grand scheme of things, this ruling means nothing.
The appeal from Texas is based on the so-called Purcell principle, claiming that the injunction against the maps came after candidates had already started to file and counties began to prepare their ballots for the upcoming election cycle.
The court will now have to decide on two key factors before issuing its final ruling. First, were the maps racially gerrymandered? And second, did the injunction violate the Purcell principle? The plaintiff's deadline for a response is today, Nov. 24, so we should have more clarity on this very shortly.
