Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    SCOTUS kicks partisan gerrymandering ball down the road

    SCOTUS kicks partisan gerrymandering ball down the road

    Court rejects and remands challenge to pro-Republican Wisconsin legislative map, and finds no abuse of discretion in district court’s failure to enjoin pro-Democrat Maryland congressional district.

    I’m so old, I remember when two partisan gerrymandering cases in the Supreme Court — one from Wisconsin and one from Maryland — were on just about everyone’s list of blockbuster cases this term, including Bloomberg, Politico, and CNN, among many others.

    The Wisconsin case involved a very pro-Republican legislative district map that would help Republicans retain control of the state legislature, and the Maryland case involved a single very pro-Democrat congressional district.

    These cases gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve what has never been resolved — to what extent, if at all, partisan political motives could invalidate a legislative map.

    But SCOTUS punted, as Adam Liptak explains:

    The Supreme Court declined on Monday to address the central questions in two closely watched challenges to partisan gerrymandering, putting off for another time a ruling on the constitutionality of voting districts designed by legislatures to amplify one party’s political power.

    In a challenge to a redistricting plan devised by the Republican Legislature in Wisconsin, the court unanimously said that the plaintiffs had not proved that they had suffered the sort of direct injury that would give them standing to sue. The justices sent the case back to a trial court to allow the plaintiffs to try again to prove that their voting power had been directly affected by the way state lawmakers drew voting districts for the State Assembly.

    In the second case, the court unanimously ruled against the Republican challengers to a Democratic plan to redraw a Maryland congressional district. In a brief unsigned opinion, the court said the challengers had waited too long to seek an injunction blocking the district, which was drawn in 2011.

    The Wisconsin decision is here, the Maryland decision is here.

    Since Republicans control most state legislatures and governorships, Democrats are desperate to get a Supreme Court ruling barring partisan gerrymandering. But if Democrats manage to recover from their disastrous state-level position, expect them to gerrymander to their benefit.

    Elections matter, particularly since SCOTUS is hesitant to set down clear guidelines as to whether partisan gerrymandering is permitted.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Bisley | June 19, 2018 at 1:52 pm

    There is very little scope for federal courts, or law to be involved in this, if they stay within the constitutional limits of their power. It’s the responsibility of the states to define the districts, and since it’s all a political process, it’s to be expected that what ever party is in power will use it to their advantage.

    Unless a state government goes to outrageous extremes in drawing districts that look like an octopus, have nothing in common between various areas of the district, and cannot be mistaken for anything other than an effort to include supporters of one party, and exclude those of another, they are within their rights. A party in power has the right to draw district boundaries to their advantage, but not by so blatantly devising their form that there can be no question of the intent. As it has been generally interpreted, it’s more about the appearance of using redistricting for political advantage, than doing so.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Aarradin in reply to Bisley. | June 20, 2018 at 4:40 am

      “Unless a state government goes to outrageous extremes in drawing districts that look like an octopus, have nothing in common between various areas of the district, and cannot be mistaken for anything other than an effort to include supporters of one party, and exclude those of another, they are within their rights.”

      Replace “unless” with “even if”, and you’d be correct.

      They can draw them however they please, and for whatever reason. The only limit is that Congressional districts must roughly be of the same population.

      That’s it.

      The remedy, if people don’t like the amount of gerrymandering going on, would be to vote out the representatives responsible for doing it. Or, you could also pass a Constitutional Amendment putting limits on it – like, say, minimizing the number of counties that could be split across district boundaries.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend