The Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of a map for Texas congressional districts that opponents say was improperly manipulated. The map, engineered by Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX), helped Republicans increase their hold on the Texas delegation.
MELISSA BLOCK, host: In Washington, the US Supreme Court entered the politically charged arena      of congressional redistricting today.  The justices said they will      examine the legality of Texas' redistricting plan.  It was bitterly      contested by Democrats, and it resulted in Republicans gaining six seats      in Congress. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports.</s>NINA TOTENBERG reporting: The plan was the brainchild of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who      had a razor-thin majority to work with in the House of Representatives in      Washington.  DeLay's idea was to undo a previously approved redistricting      plan that had been completed after the 2000 census and to substitute a      new plan redrawing district lines so as to virtually assure Republicans      six additional House votes in Texas.  To that end, he aggressively raised      money to elect enough Republican state legislators to pass the new      reapportionment plan.</s>NINA TOTENBERG reporting: Democrats in the state Legislature fought back, even fleeing the state to      deny the Republicans a quorum.  Latino and black voters objected to the      plan, claiming it diluted their voting strength.  But the Justice      Department in Washington ruled that the plan did not violate the Voting      Rights Act.  And, finally, after a long struggle, the plan was enacted.</s>NINA TOTENBERG reporting: On the legal front, though, the challenge to the plan continued, and      today the Supreme Court said it would examine the issues presented by      four separate groups of voters.  The court said it would devote an      unusual two hours of oral argument to the case in March.  Among the      questions before the court are these:  Once the plan has been approved      after a census, does the Constitution allow a second middecennial      redistricting?  Does the Constitution put any brakes on a redistricting      plan that, in this case, the Republicans concede was done for a purely      partisan advantage?  Were the voting rights of minorities diluted by this      plan, in violation of the Voting Rights Act?  And was the one person, one      vote doctrine violated because the second redistricting was based on      census data that, by that time, was old?</s>Professor PAM CARLIN (Stanford University): So the court will have a      menu of claims in front of it.</s>TOTENBERG: Stanford law Professor Pam Carlin is an expert on voting      rights laws.</s>Professor PAM CARLIN (Stanford University): And it's possible that the court will strike down the plan      without ever reaching whether it's politically fair or not.  It's also      possible that the court will develop some rule with real teeth in it for      what counts as a politically acceptable plan under the equal protection      clause. It's anyone's guess.</s>TOTENBERG: In short, the court could invalidate the plan as a violation      of the Voting Rights Act and not tackle any of the other questions, or it      could tackle all of them.</s>TOTENBERG: A good deal has happened since the plan was adopted in 2003 by the      Republican-controlled state Legislature.  For Tom DeLay, the plan has      proved to be something like quicksand.  DeLay now faces a felony charge      that he laundered money in violation of state law in order to elect a      state Legislature that implemented the plan.  The House Ethics Committee      has reprimanded him for improperly using the Federal Aviation      Administration to locate some Democratic state legislators who had fled      the state during the legislative fight over the plan.  And earlier this      month a two-year-old Justice Department memo surfaced disclosing that the      career lawyers in the voting rights section unanimously concluded that      the plan was illegal under the Voting Rights Act.  The conclusion,      however, was overruled by Bush administration political appointees in the      department, thus allowing the plan to go forward.</s>TOTENBERG: With confirmation hearings set for Samuel Alito in January, it is unclear      which justices will hear the Texas case.  In the last major test of      partisan redistricting at the Supreme Court, the court was evenly split,      with Justice Kennedy casting the deciding vote against intervention by      the court while at the same time questioning whether there might be some      limit to partisan redistricting.  Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.</s>MICHELE NORRIS (Host): This is NPR, National Public Radio.