Pa. congressional map unaffected by US Supreme Court decision

Share

Yesterday, the Supreme Court once again decided not to decide the merits of two partisan redistricting cases. But Kennedy was unwilling to bar all future claims of injury from partisan gerrymanders.

"I am pleased that the highest court in the land has unanimously reversed the trial court's erroneous decision invalidating Wisconsin's Assembly map".

"That is a collective political interest, not an individual legal interest", writes Roberts.

She said courts must find their footing to stop a partisan process that is "degrading the nation's democracy", and that map-drawing software only makes it easier to draw precise lines.

And Chief Justice John Roberts said that the plaintiffs in Wisconsin had not shown they were hurt individually by the legislature's actions, a necessary component for courts to intervene. "We look forward to the opportunity to argue our case on the merits before the U.S. Supreme Court, where we do not have the same procedural issues that prevented a substantive ruling" in the Wisconsin or Maryland disputes.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a concurrence to address what kind of evidence the plaintiffs needed to present to support their standing claim.

Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court's role "is to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it", not generalized partisan preferences.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is UW-Madison Law Professor Emeritus Bill Whitford. Alternatively, the court could require challengers to show only that the party in power intentionally drew a map to put the other party at a disadvantage. The justices cited, for example, the challengers' delay in seeking an injunction, the closeness to the next election and the tight time constraints facing the district court.

The high court did not rule on the broader constitutionality of so-called gerrymandering.

The court cases will continue, while others are waiting in the wings, according to press releases by the American Civil Liberties Union and Common Cause. Namely, much will hinge on how the maps of election districts are drawn, and whether they have been deliberately configured to favor one party over another-e.g., whether the practice of partisan gerrymandering is in effect.

Newman agrees to two-way contract with the LA Lakers
The Lakers took Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk , a 6-foot-8 sharpshooter out of Kansas, in the second round with the 47 overall pick. While Svi was forced to play out of position a bit in college, he will likely be playing shooting guard for the Lakers.

The justices ruled against Wisconsin Democrats, who challenged legislative districts that gave Republicans a big majority in the state legislature. In 2012, the first election with the new map in place, Republicans won 60 of 99 Assembly seats with just 48.6 percent of the statewide vote.

Were this the Court's final word on how partisan gerrymanders may proceed, it would be a disaster for anti-gerrymandering plaintiffs. "Today, Republicans control 26 state legislatures, Democrats 17, and five have split control".

The case: A federal lawsuit filed June 13 and backed by a national Democratic redistricting group alleges that a U.S. House district was redrawn in 2011 by the state's Republican-led Legislature and GOP governor to illegally limit the voting influence of black residents. These attempts to change the rules of redistricting are just another round of the same game.

Anti-gerrymandering rally in front of the US Supreme Court on October 3, 2017. The party on the wrong end of redistricting, she wrote, "may face difficulties fundraising, attracting volunteers, and recruiting candidates to run for office", thereby harming the constitutional right to free association. Now, at least, partisan gerrymandering challenges can live on for another day.

The very Americans who are exhausted of being pawns in purely partisan plays and giving up on our system need to be the goal of redistricting.

At the argument, Roberts anxious that regardless of what the justices" rationale is in deciding whether Republicans or Democrats win these claims, "The intelligent man on the street will say, "That's a bunch of baloney.' ..." But as a result of Monday's technical resolutions, both states' maps will be intact for the 2018 elections, and the status quo remains. The court has not been successful in developing a test concerning the overreliance on politics. "The same should be true for partisan gerrymandering". State Senate: 35 Republicans, 15 Democrats. It was the flawless storm, showing both the extreme nature of gerrymandering and how both parties do it.

Hasen added, "This was really the golden opportunity for him to decide these cases".

The American Civil Liberties Union called the Supreme Court's punt on Monday a "missed opportunity", although there are ongoing cases in OH and North Carolina.

Also, the Maryland challengers-Republican voters-urged the justices to adopt the First Amendment as the only manageable standard for judging partisan gerrymanders.

Share