At the end of the 2006 term, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision with respect to the Texas redistricting controversy. While in its decision (LULAC v. Perry) the court struck down one of the newly drawn districts (the 23rd) the case is more notable for what the court did not do. The Court did not see anything in the Constitution indicating that state legislatures are restricted as to when redistricting ought to be done. Traditionally the process is done after the new census data is delivered, usually in years ending in 1, and the new districts are in effect for elections in years ending in a 2. The state government in Texas was still divided in 2001 and a federal court ended up drawing new district boundaries, but after the GOP gained control in the next election they decided to redraw the congressional district lines more to their advantage for the 2004 election. Moreover a big part of the litigation was the claim that the Republicans had treated the Democrats unfairly enough in the new map that it constituted a partisan gerrymander and the Court, the Democrats claimed, ought to step in and doing something about it. The Justices did not strike down the map on these grounds and it is still unclear to most observers if the Court will step into the fray at some late date with respect to this issue.