WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 -- Texas on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a lower court ruling that orders the state to redraw its congressional districts by March 15 because three districts were drawn along racial lines. The high court justices will decide if they want to hear a full- fledged appeal from Texas after New Year's Day, or even combine it with similar cases. Wednesday's request from Texas asks the Supreme Court to block any lower court action until that decision is made. In papers filed by Texas Solicitor Renea Hicks, Texas said that, barring clear direction from the Supreme Court, the legal status of racially drawn congressional districts is too confused for the state Legislature to act. 'A conscientious legislator will be adrift on largely uncharted statutory and constitutional seas come March 15th' if forced to follow the lower court order, Texas said in its request. The 1990 Census increased Texas' representation in the U.S. House of Representatives from 27 to 30, and the state Legislature redrew the district lines so that they included two black-majority and seven Hispanic-majority districts. About 12 percent of Texans are black and another 23 percent are Hispanic. A small group of white Republican voters first challenged the new districts as unconstitutional in 1992, but a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Houston summarily ruled for the state. However, in June 1993 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in a similar case out of North Carolina, Shaw vs.
Reno, that any irregularly drawn congressional district had to be justified by a 'compelling state interest.' The Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did not resolve the issues of fact in the North Carolina case, which was sent back down for a rehearing and is on its way back up to the Supreme Court. And O'Connor's opinion did not specify what that 'compelling state interest' had to be. The result was a spate of suits, mainly in the South, with white voters challenging districts drawn along racial lines following the 1990 census. 'Widely varying interpretations of Shaw vs. Reno have issued from the (U.S.) district courts,' Texas complained in its request to the Supreme Court. After the Shaw decision, another group of six white Republican voters again challenged the Texas redistricting. Another three-judge panel in Houston let the 1994 congressional elections go forward, but ordered the Legislature to redraw the state's districts before the 1996 general election, saying that three of the 30 districts were unconstitutional under the Shaw decision. Two of the districts are in Houston and the third is in Dallas. Texas' request for a stay of the lower court order goes to Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees the 5th U.S. Circuit, which includes Texas. Scalia can grant or deny the request, or refer it to the full Supreme Court. The Supreme Court already has agreed to hear a full-fledged appeal by Louisiana, which wants the justices to overturn a lower court-ordered redistricting plan. The Louisiana court-ordered plan, which also involved a three-judge panel trying to resolve conflicts caused by Shaw vs. Reno, has been blocked by the justices until they hear argument in that case, probably sometime before May. The Texas case, as well as others from California, North Carolina and Georgia, could be combined with the Louisiana case. (Applicaton No. 454, Ann Richards et al vs. Al Vera et al)
