Perry v. Perez/Concurrence Thomas

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012)

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nos. 11–713, 11–714 and 11–715

RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS
 * 11–713

v. SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL

RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS
 * 11–714

v. WENDY DAVIS, ET AL.

RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS
 * 11–715

v. SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

[January 20, 2012]

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.

The Court proceeds from the premise that court-drawn interim plans are necessary in part because Texas' newly enacted redistricting plans are unenforceable for lack of preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ante, at 1–3. In my view, Texas' failure to timely obtain §5 preclearance of its new plans is no obstacle to their implementation, because, as I have previously explained, §5 is unconstitutional. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 212 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Although Texas' new plans are being chal-

lenged on the grounds that they violate the Federal Constitution and §2 of the Voting Rights Act, they have not yet been found to violate any law. Accordingly, Texas' duly enacted redistricting plans should govern the upcoming elections. I would therefore vacate the interim orders and remand for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to consider appellees' constitutional and §2 challenges in the ordinary course.