March 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled reluctance to overturn a Texas congressional map engineered by former U.S. House Republican Leader Tom DeLay.

In a two-hour argument session in Washington, the court aimed a barrage of questions at a lawyer arguing that the 2003 redistricting was a partisan bid to break up Democratic strongholds. The map, which helped Republicans pick up five U.S. House seats in Texas in the next year's election, replaced one that was drawn by a court in 2001 after a legislative deadlock.

The high court's skepticism crossed ideological lines, with some of the most pointed questions coming from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, who both previously voted to allow challenges to partisan redistricting.

``You seem to treat this as a redone redistricting, instead of as the very first redistricting done by a legislature,'' Ginsburg said to Paul Smith, the lawyer for a group of voters and Democratic lawmakers challenging the map.

Smith said the Texas legislature lacked any ``rational, legitimate public purpose'' in enacting the new map. He said the court-drawn map was a fair plan that had produced a Democratic majority from Texas only because voters in six heavily Republican districts crossed party lines in casting their ballots.

Smith drew skepticism from Souter when he argued that the unusual timing of the redistricting -- mid-decade rather than after the 10-year census -- underscored its partisan purposes.

``How can we in principle say that the motive that is legitimate in 1991 is somehow illegitimate and dispositive in 1995?'' Souter asked.

Democratic Walkout

The Texas fight drew national attention in 2003 when Democratic lawmakers twice left the state in an effort to prevent a vote at the state legislature. The Justice Department cleared the new Texas map, overriding objections from staff lawyers that the plan violated the Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities.

The justices are reviewing a three-judge panel ruling that allowed the redistricting. DeLay isn't a party to the case.

The high court dispute also presents several issues under the Voting Rights Act. The court is being asked to decide whether lawmakers can split a district where black voters, though only a minority, can be pivotal in determining the winner.

In addition, a group of Latino voters contends that the Republican plan watered down minority voting strength in one of the seven Hispanic-majority districts.

Kennedy Vote

The court could order one or more districts redrawn without striking down the entire map. Kennedy said he was troubled by the transfer of 100,000 Hispanic voters out of District 23, a move that reduced the Latino majority there to 51 percent and helped ensure the re-election of Republican Representative Henry Bonilla with mostly white support.

Kennedy said Republicans may have left the district as majority Hispanic only for the sake of appearances. ``It seems to me that's an affront and an insult,'' he said.

The high court last considered so-called political gerrymandering in 2004. A 5-4 majority rejected arguments that the Republican-drawn Pennsylvania districts were so partisan that they violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

One member of the majority, Kennedy, left the door open to similar challenges in the future if courts could come up with a ``workable standard.''

Kennedy today gave little indication he had found such a standard. He told Smith that the prospect of mid-decade redistricting might prevent partisan ``overreaching'' by legislatures at the beginning of a decade.

`Control Mechanism'

``It seems to me very dangerous for this court to take away that control mechanism,'' he said.

The case poses the first voting-rights test for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court's newest members. Roberts was one the court's most active questioners. He asked Smith why a legislature couldn't ``redress the gerrymander of its predecessor.''

Alito asked only a single question that concerned the Voting Rights Act, not the political gerrymandering issue.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, defending the new district lines, said they replaced ``one of the most profoundly anti- majoritarian maps'' in the country.

``There is nothing in Texas to prevent the Democrats from doing the exact same thing over the next decade if they can command a majority at the polls,'' he said.

Afternoon Session

The court heard arguments in a rare afternoon session, completing four hours of hearings on the day. The long day took a toll on Ginsburg, who nodded off for about 15 minutes as the argument wound down. Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Ginsburg, who recently returned from a trip to South Africa, had no comment.

The Texas primary is scheduled for March 7, though a lower court could order a new vote if the Republican-drawn map is struck down by the justices. The high court is due to decide the case by July.

The cases are League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 05-204; Travis County v. Perry, 05-254; Jackson v. Perry, 05-276; and GI Forum of Texas v. Perry, 05-439.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 1, 2006 17:41 EST