Texas Voting Rights Case Goes Before Supreme Court WASHINGTON - Several members of the Supreme Court appeared frustrated on Monday as they surveyed the available options and looming deadlines in a major voting rights case from Texas that could help decide control of the House. The case is a result of a population boom in Texas, which gained more than four million people in the last decade, about 65 percent of them Hispanic. The growth entitles the state to four additional Congressional seats. The Texas Legislature, controlled by Republicans, enacted new electoral maps for both state houses the federal House of Representatives in May and June to take account of the growth in population, and Gov. Rick Perry signed them into law in July. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, though, the maps may not be used until they are approved, or "precleared," by either the Justice Department or a special three-judge court in Washington. Texas officials chose to go to court, and they have so far not received clearance. In the meantime, a second special three-judge federal court, this one in San Antonio, Tex., drew a competing set of electoral maps when Texas failed to obtain prompt federal clearance. The question for the Supreme Court justices is whether the court-drawn maps give enough deference to the Legislature's choices. The answer may help determine whether the new districts elect Democrats or Republicans. Texas officials appealed the San Antonio court's decisions, saying the judges in the majority had indeed not paid enough deference to the Legislature's maps. Democratic and Hispanic groups countered that the Legislature's maps deserve no deference because they have not been cleared by the federal government. They also said the maps were flawed in failing to ensure that Hispanics are able to elect candidates of their choice in some of the new districts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed sympathetic to those arguments. Since the Legislature's new maps have not been cleared, they are invalid, Justice Sotomayor said. "The only thing that exists are old maps until you get preclearance," she said. But the old maps contemplate 32 rather than 36 Congressional districts. Several justices asked just how quickly they would have to act to make sure elections in Texas, where the primaries have already been pushed back to April, can proceed in an orderly way. "We're all under the gun of very strict time limitations," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The special court in Washington rejected the state's request for summary judgment, saying the State Legislature in Texas had used "an improper standard or methodology to determine which districts afford minority voters to elect their preferred candidates of choice." The special court in Washington plans to hold a trial this month and may issue a final decision in perhaps a month. There appeared to be some sentiment on the Supreme Court to allow it to complete its work before the justices rule. The Washington court has instructed the San Antonio court to "designate a substitute interim plan for the 2012 election cycle." In November, a majority of the San Antonio court did so in a series of decisions, drawing a blistering dissent from Judge Jerry Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. The three cases before the Supreme Court justices are Perry v. Perez, No 11-713, on the Statehouse, Perry v. Davis, No. 11-714, on redistricting the State Senate, and Perry v. Perez, No. 11-715, on the House of Representatives. Lurking in the background of the arguments was a momentous question: Does Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires states with a history of discrimination to obtain permission from the federal government before making changes in voting procedures, still comply with the Constitution almost 50 years later? The court ducked the issue in a 2009 decision but indicated that it might soon return to it and strike down the provision. "There's a terrible history of discrimination in Texas," said Jose Garza, a lawyer representing challengers to the legislative map. Chief Justice Roberts interrupted him. The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not at issue here, right? Mr. Garza agreed and moved on to another argument.