Henderson v Perry A federal district court has ruled 3-0 to uphold the House districting plan drawn by the Texas legislature in 2003 that replaced the plan that the (same) federal court had imposed in 2001. After the legislature had passed its redistricting plan, it was challenged in federal court and upheld late in 2003. This decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which last year remanded the case back to the district court in light of its
Vieth decision issued in summer 2004.
Vieth was the Pennsylvania case on partisan congressional redistricting. 4 justices said that in 20 years that the courts had futilely attempted to define a judicial standard for unlawful partisan gerrymandering and they should abandon the attempt. Justice Kennedy said that there was no such standard that could be applied to the Pennsylvania case, but that the courts should continue their decades long pursuit in case that someone could come up with an applicable case somewhere.
A somewhat bizarre argument made in the Texas case was that the use of 2000 census data was illegal because it violated one man, one vote principles, because the population had changed since the census.
