SouthernWorldwide.com – A sharp disagreement has emerged among federal judges regarding the ruling that overturned Texas’ redistricting plan, with one judge fiercely criticizing his colleague’s decision.
A three-judge panel made a 2-1 decision on Tuesday, stating that Texas must abandon the new congressional maps created earlier this year. Judge Jeffrey Brown, writing for the majority, argued that the map, which was designed to create five new seats favorable to the Republican party, constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The ruling was issued by Judges Brown and David Guaderrama, who were appointed by former President Trump and former President Obama, respectively. Texas has already appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This ruling could significantly impact redistricting efforts across the country. Several other states, including California, have followed Texas’ example by redrawing their electoral maps. California, for instance, adjusted five congressional districts to be more favorable to Democrats.
The third member of the panel, Judge Jerry Smith, who was appointed by former President Reagan, submitted his dissenting opinion on Wednesday. In his lengthy 104-page dissent, he repeatedly used the phrase “I dissent,” emphasizing his strong opposition.
Judge Smith accused the other two judges of making their ruling without allowing him adequate time to respond, calling the situation “outrageous.” He stated that Judges Brown had provided him with drafts exceeding 160 pages in the days leading up to the decision, giving him only a few days to react and failing to wait for his dissenting opinion.
“In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved,” Smith wrote, expressing his strong disapproval of the process.
Smith’s dissent, which began with a dramatic warning, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!”, also contained scathing critiques of the majority’s opinion. He referred to Judge Brown as an “unskilled magician,” likened his reasoning to a “bizarre multiple-choice question from hell,” and labeled the ruling the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.”
Read more: Dozens of Cocaine Packages Seized in Pacific, 11 Rescued from Shipwreck
At one point, when discussing the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction, Smith wrote, “If this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an ‘F.'” This statement clearly illustrates his low regard for the legal reasoning presented in the majority opinion.
Race or politics?
The core of the disagreement between Judges Smith and Brown centers on whether Texas lawmakers redrew the state’s House districts for partisan gain or for racial reasons.
The redistricting process began after former President Trump and his supporters urged Texas officials to create as many as five new Republican-leaning seats. This move was aimed at helping Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections.
During this period, Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Texas Governor Greg Abbott. In the letter, she alleged that a number of the state’s existing districts were illegal “coalition” districts. In these districts, non-Hispanic White voters were in the minority, but no single racial group held a majority.
Tuesday’s majority opinion, authored by Judge Brown, stated that Governor Abbott “explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race” and “repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts.”
The court concluded that the state’s redistricting efforts were unconstitutional because they were driven by racial considerations rather than purely political ones. Judge Brown noted that while it is legal for lawmakers to redraw maps for partisan reasons, maps that engage in racial gerrymandering can be challenged in court.
Judge Smith, however, disagreed with this assessment. He pointed to evidence he believed indicated that the new Texas maps were primarily influenced by partisan politics, not race.
Smith cited testimony from Adam Kincaid, one of the mapmakers, who provided a detailed explanation for his decisions in shifting the boundaries of congressional districts. Smith stated that Kincaid “had a perfectly legitimate and candidly partisan explanation for his every decision.”
Smith also highlighted that California Governor Gavin Newsom, who redrew his state’s maps in response to Texas, “took a victory lap” after the recent ruling. This, according to Smith, indicated that the issue was fundamentally about partisan politics.
“That tells you all that you need to know—this is about partisan politics, plain and simple,” Smith asserted, emphasizing his belief in the partisan motivations behind the redistricting efforts.
In response to Smith’s comments, Governor Newsom posted on X, stating, “This judge says California’s redistricting in response to Texas was overwhelmingly partisan. Yes, ours was. That was the ENTIRE POINT!” This response confirmed Smith’s view on the partisan nature of the redistricting actions.
Smith further claimed that the “main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom.” He alleged that Soros, a prominent liberal donor, and his son, Alex Soros, were heavily involved, citing connections between plaintiffs’ lawyers and experts and groups funded by the Soros family’s Open Society Foundations.
Smith warned that if the ruling were to stand, it could disrupt the upcoming congressional races. “As a legal and practical matter, Judge Brown’s injunction turns the Texas electoral and political landscape upside down,” he said. “It creates mayhem, chaos, misinformation, and confusion.”
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), one of the plaintiffs in the case, stated that Smith’s claim of the redistricting being purely political is “flatly contradicted by the record.” The group also rejected Smith’s assertion that the ruling would lead to “chaos,” arguing that the “true risk would be allowing an unlawful, racially discriminatory map to stand.”
“Protecting voters from racial discrimination is not activism; it is a constitutional obligation,” said LULAC CEO Juan Proaño. “The majority acted responsibly to uphold the law and safeguard the rights of millions of Texans.”
CBS News has reached out to Judge Brown and the Open Society Foundations for their comments on the matter.
