Perry v. Perez/Concurrence Thomas

by Clarence Thomas

page 1, slip opinion

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-

page 2, slip opinion 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.

---

The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows:

The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx)