Feb. 2006: Texas Redistricting Case before the U.S. Supreme Court
Amicus Brief filed by Dr. Alan Heslop, et al.:
Amici Curiae are academics and/or practitioners with practical experience in the districting phase of the apportionment process. They are all either responsible for, or work with those responsible for, the drafting of district-based representational plans around the nation. Their combined experience covers just about all of the steps of the complex process whereby political power in America is distributed amongst the people. All have been involved, at some level, with districting for both congressional delegations and state legislatures. Amici share a concern for fair redistricting and an enlightened role for the courts in this inherently political process.
Summary:
The 2004 Texas congressional redistricting plan is not an excessive or egregious partisan gerrymander. As is clear from this Court's partisan gerrymandering jurisprudence, and the briefs of the parties in this appeal, there are many proposed methods for attempting to measure the "partisan fairness" of a districting plan. The undersigned Amici seek to assist the Court in its analysis of the 2004 Texas plan by providing the Court with analyses-based upon election results and simple mathematical measures-of Texas congressional plans used in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections. These analyses are based upon comparisons of these plans with generally accepted relationships between votes received and seats won. Amici explain this seats-votes ratio, which is often depicted in a graph known as the "seats-votes curve," and illustrate how a party winning more than a majority of the votes usually wins a supermajority of the seats due to a "seat bonus."
