The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday is mostly a Republican Party victory, for it upholds the legality of almost all the controversial congressional redistricting plan rammed through the Legislature in 2003. It was a victory for those of either party who would draw lines solely in consideration of party interests, and the time will come soon enough when minority Republicans in other states are yelping as loudly about it as Democrats have been here.

The majority ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, does require that several of the state's 32 districts be adjusted, including the 25th, which winds from southeast Austin all the way to McAllen. U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, represents the district.

But nationally, the court's ruling might signal the start of far more redistricting, because it upheld the right of a legislature to redraw district lines any time it wishes, not just once a decade after a census is taken. So, any time control of a legislature veers from one party to another, the new state lawmakers can start redrawing congressional districts to suit their majority party's interests. The Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voter interests, would be the only brake on frequent redistricting fests.

Unlike obscenity, the Supreme Court apparently can't recognize partisan redistricting when it sees it. Officially, at least, the court has held that redrawing districts for purely partisan reasons could violate the law. If ever that happened, it was in Texas in 2003 when then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay came to Austin and engineered a redistricting plan — despite a new plan implemented just the year before — specifically aimed at boosting the number of Republicans in the Texas congressional delegation. He succeeded, and Texas went from a 17-15 split that favored Democrats to a 21-11 split that favored Republicans.

One possible casualty from adjusting the current map to meet the court's objections is U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican from San Antonio whose district reaches southwest to the border, including part of Laredo. The court majority said the redrawing of his district violated federal law because it diluted the voting strength of the Hispanic majority. (That Bonilla is Hispanic is irrelevant; he was in trouble with Hispanic voters, and the GOP tried to help him by reducing the number of Latino voters in his district and giving him more non-Hispanic white voters.)

But Bonilla's District 23 can't be adjusted without changing the boundaries of at least one other district, and probably several — including Doggett's. In fact, the court said "there is no reason to believe District 25 will remain in its current form once District 23 is brought into compliance" with the Voting Rights Act. Doggett has won acceptance from a majority of voters in District 25, which is dominated by Hispanics, but he might soon find himself again meeting new constituents.

And quite a few voters in south and southwest Texas in the affected districts might find themselves trying to figure out just for whom they can vote. The district lines must be redrawn by a panel of three federal judges quickly (especially if new primaries are needed). After all, the November election is just over four months away.

In keeping with Texas' colorful and sometimes bizarre political history, the author of the redistricting plan, DeLay, became so ensnared in scandal and controversy that he resigned from the House and quit his re-election campaign because it was hurting his party, not just in Texas but nationally. Now, Democrats have gone to court to keep him on the November ballot and any Republican successor off.

Nevertheless, DeLay's legacy — purely partisan-driven redistricting, mid-census redistricting if it suits the party in power — has passed legal muster before the Supreme Court, a monument to party interests above all.