The US Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week on the Northwest Austin (TX) Utility District case helped set the ground rules for the 2011 redistricting process. This action, paired with the high court’s earlier decision in the Bartlett v. Strickland case (North Carolina) and the Census Bureau not including sampling in their 2010 data formula, means that the legal interpretations and precedents governing redistricting will be basically the same as they were in 2001.

There are wide variances of opinion, even within the two political parties themselves, as to how these parameters will affect their own individual future electoral prospects. To summarize all of the decisions -- most of which affect the drawing of minority districts -- protecting seats with the same percentage of minority voting age population on a hard count will stand, and the 17 states covered by the Voting Rights Act will still be required to obtain pre-clearance from the US Department of Justice.

For Republicans who want outright elimination of the Voting Rights Act, these rulings are bad news. For Republicans who understand that keeping the continuity of minority communities within a district at population percentages that have proven to elect minority candidates actually increases GOP strength in a greater number of outlying districts, these rulings are positive. For Democrats who want to break up minority districts and influence a greater number of seats with minority voters thus creating more Democratic districts, these parameters are negative. For classic civil rights oriented Democrats who work to protect and guarantee minority political representation, these rulings are positive.

With 12-14 seats switching states in 2010 apportionment, several places will become key redistricting players. For Republicans, three offensive states are Texas – slated to gain as many as four new seats and where the GOP has a strong chance to control the drawing pen – Georgia – gaining one seat and where Republicans have room to grow in the congressional delegation – and Tennessee – where the GOP has a chance to win the Governorship and both houses of the legislature and where the 5-4 Democratic congressional delegation does not reflect the state’s more Republican voting trends.

Democrats’ offensive states are California -- where their strong chances of winning the Governorship will give them total control of the pen and the ability to decrease the size of the 19-seat Republican contingent – Illinois – losing a seat, which will assuredly be a Republican-held district, and having the potential for further Democratic gains – and North Carolina – possibly gaining one seat, and a place where Democrats will control the pen if they hold both houses of the legislature.

Other critical states are: Florida, where Republicans must hold the Governorship to cement their gains of the last redistricting cycle; Arizona, gaining two seats and controlled by a commission that allows equal representation to minor party representatives; and South Carolina, apparently gaining one seat, but a state where aggressive Republicans could pick up an additional district if they are willing to draw Budget Chairman John Spratt an unfavorable seat.

Much wheeling and dealing will transpire in the period between the 2010 and 2012 elections. The action of this past week, however, virtually establishes the redistricting ground rules, which will be the basis for a definable map drawing process.