Judge Smith’s dissent makes more sense once you see all six.
I wrote a story #1285845 about the Texas map getting blocked, but the opinions look like they’re describing different lawsuits. One filing focuses on race, another on voter assistance, another on timing. It’s confusing unless you realize the court was juggling six independent storylines under one master case.
Here’s the breakdown (with sources):
📌 Master Case (2025) – Texas Congressional Map + Election-Law Challenge
Opinion PDF:
https://www.texastribune.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/El-Paso-redistricting-ruling.pdf
1️⃣ Storyline A — Racial Gerrymandering (Equal Protection)
Was race the predominant factor in drawing the map?
Majority: Yes.
Judge Smith: No — says it’s just politics.
This is the core of the majority’s ruling. It’s also the storyline Judge Smith rejects outright.
⸻
2️⃣ Storyline B — Minority Vote Dilution (VRA §2, Gingles Test)
Did Texas dismantle coalition districts that gave minorities a fair opportunity to elect candidates?
Separate analysis, separate standard.
Judge Smith barely touches it.
⸻
3️⃣ Storyline C — Voter Assistance Restrictions (VRA §208 / ADA / LEP)
Texas limited who can assist voters with disabilities or limited English.
This storyline lives in its own legal universe, not about maps at all.
This is why one ruling looks like it’s about race, and another looks like it’s about polling-place assistance: they’re distinct claims inside the same case.
⸻
4️⃣ Storyline D — Ballot-Access Timing (Purcell Principle)
Candidate filing deadlines, election calendar, and whether courts can intervene close to an election.
This is a classic “don’t change the rules late” fight.
⸻
5️⃣ Storyline E — DOJ Pressure (Evidence of Motive)
The Trump-era DOJ letter told Texas to get rid of specific minority districts.
Majority says: This is proof of racial intent.
Smith says: Just political bargaining, not racial.
This single piece of evidence sits at the center of the split.
⸻
6️⃣ Storyline F — Intent vs. Effect (Constitutional Core Question)
This is where the whole case turns:
• Majority: Race predominated over politics → unconstitutional.
• Smith: Politics predominated over race → courts should stay out.
This is the philosophical and legal heart of the divide.
⸻
🎯 Why This Matters
When people read the opinion and say:
“Why is this one about race and that one about voter assistance?”
The answer is: because the case isn’t one fight — it’s six.
Smith’s dissent only makes sense once you see that he effectively rejects A, E, and F, ignores B, C, and D, and reframes the entire case as pure partisanship, which collapses the majority’s framework.