BGH weighs gently partisan gerrymandering

close tovideo Supreme court on two partisan gerrymandering cases

Court prevented the decision about gerrymandering the Constitution in two cases, one from Wisconsin Democrats, the other from Maryland, a Republican, demanded be drawn, congressional and legislative districts, Doug McKelway reports.

The Supreme court appeared convinced Tuesday that congressional maps, drawn by two land days party excessively, but also worried about whether the judges themselves should be the ones, the elimination of the long-festering problem.

isan gerrymandering can the wonky side of politics, but the stakes are huge: the balance of power in the country, and the Congress tilt could change in the coming years, in particular after the 2020 census, voting boundaries are redrawn based on population.

The judges heard two cases. In North Carolina, the drawn 2011 map by the GOP-led legislature now, 10 of 13 congressional seats from the Republicans, in spite of a General Status of the population, which divided mostly along party lines, and where country-wide elections recently were in the vicinity.

And in Maryland, was the question of whether the Republican voters could be before the court and challenge a redistricting plan they say violated their First Amendment rights. 2011-voting card shifted the political balance in the state, in the rural 6th congressional district, turning a traditional GOP stronghold of Democratic control in a total blue state.


“Under any measure, this is excessive, isn’t it?” justice Elena Kagan said.

“The goal was, seven/one,” justice Brett Kavanaugh of the lawyer, Maryland said, say Democrats openly boasted of their efforts have only a Republican member of Congress. “I mean, I don’t think you should escape from the Hand.”

A new round of nationwide redistricting will occur after the next year of the census. Republicans used strong state victories in 2010, significantly the Form of electoral cards to your advantage.


The almost 80-minute drive from the arguments within the courtroom revealed once again the judges were pressed to be hard to articulate a clear, final decision on the limitation of partiality in the map-drawing.

The judges have never invalidated an election district because of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. And the targeted survey, the Bank proposed, would not use, to decide the pending cases as a precedent, the landmark Problem.

“The Supreme court will soon hear, to elaborate arguments on the question of whether politicians can be trusted, in their own neighborhoods,” wrote the governors of Maryland and North Carolina in a joint Washington Post op-ed, on Monday. “Take it from us. You can’t do it.”


In the arguments, attorney Paul Clement, representing the North Carolina legislature, in a nutshell, the court in Wade carefully to deep in the sole discretion of the legislature. “If you can’t even get into the political thicket, you, and you be to tarnish the image of this court.”

Justice Stephen Breyer said that was why the court needed to find a “clear sign” for the future. Without you, “you have many, many elections in the United States, the judge will,” he said. “There’s always someone who wants to appeal the decision. You will always find, that experts of all kinds. And what do you discover, decide, the judge is simply to much.”

“Have we really achieved, at the moment, though, it would be a great lift for the court to get involved, where the other actor can’t do?” Kavanaugh asked.”


Justice Neil from gorsuch was clear: “Why should we wade into this?”

But justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other on the bench pushed back.

“It can’t be that simply because the Constitution says that a particular act is in the hands of one branch of the government,” she said, “deprives the courts in assessing whether an action is constitutional or not.”

“This is what it is”, viewing it added the North Carolina. “You’re discriminating on the basis of a group of speech and dilute their votes accordingly.”


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted a previous high court precedent, there is jurisdiction over the issue, including the mandate of giving the same individual weight in right levy, the so-called “one person, one vote” standard.

“Has to have a person to have a voice that counts equally with the other, if the effect of your vote is reduced because of their party affiliation?”, she asked.

Courts nationwide in the last months of the GOP plans have thrown in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

To say opponents of the plans that your Constitution were violated their rights.


Attorney Emmet Bondurant — argued in 1962 successfully, one of the first partisan-gerrymandering case in the high court — called on GOP legislators in North Carolina.

“You take the position that, no matter how the dominant intent, no matter how extreme the impact,” he told the judge, “there is absolutely no constitutional restrictions on the partisan gerrymander.”

Several conservative judges to the question of the alternative formulas offered by Bondurant and the opposing lawyer Maryland map.

“I think that is to pay, right? How much deviation from the proportional representation is enough to dictate a result?”, the evil justice Neil from gorsuch asked. “So are we not simply back in the business to decide what degree of tolerance that we are willing, with the proportional representation? We could pick a number out of thin air, or see that, you know, maybe two-thirds will be overwritten used for veto, so we like it. Where do we get the number on the business end of this?”


More than three dozen States relying on the state legislature to directly redraw borders, now with state of the art computer models that have the ability, the opponent’s voters by their street or in the household. Other States, such as California, you will leave to create an independent Commission, which supporters say would be less districts extremely.

The judges appeared to be aware of the consequences, with Kavanaugh extreme partisan gerrymandering say “is a real problem for our democracy-and I’m not going to deny that.”


But Chief Justice John Roberts stated the obvious in the policy-if a party to enjoy the benefits of a redistricting map, it is reluctant to change it.

“I take it that the members of Congress are quite happy with the way the districting,” he said, bringing uneasy laughter in the crowded courtroom.

The North Carolina case, Rucho v. Common cause (18-422).

The Maryland case is Lamone v. Benisek (18-726). The verdicts are expected by June.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular