close tovideo Supreme court decision on gerrymandering
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme court says Federal courts have no role in the police work of partisan redistricting; David Spunt reports.
The Supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, said Federal judges have no role in policing partisan redistricting, effectively removing the courts from the process and instead of leaving controversial congressional maps in North Carolina and Maryland.
The opinion about gerrymandering, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said that the Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on political questions like this. It is up to the legislature to deal with such questions.
“No one can accuse this dish with handles, look at the range of his competence,” Roberts wrote. “But we have to make a reservation, no Commission, political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional Directive or legal standards, which guide us in the exercise of this authority.”
The cases, Benisek v. Lamone, and Rucho v. Common cause, dealt with the allocation of congressional districts in Maryland and North Carolina, respectively, in a manner which favours obviously one party over another. Lower courts ruled that the redistricting was improper, and ordered to adopt them to new plans.
Now you are no longer, as the lower courts ” were vacated judgments by the Supreme Court judgment.
Justice Elena Kagan strongly disagrees with the conservative majority.
“In such a Gerry Manders a pass from the judicial review, the majority of which goes tragically wrong,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion.
The Maryland case involved 66,000 Republicans, is moved from the Sixth constituency and a net increase of 24,000 Democrats. What was once considered solid Republican district suddenly favored Democrats. Most of the people moved from the Sixth district Eight district have been moved, claiming to be a democratic majority. The federal District Court found that this was done deliberately, and decided that the newly drawn map against the First Amendment “by the load on both of the plaintiff’s rights, and Association rights because of their party affiliation, and voting history.”
In North Carolina, it was a Republican that profited from partisan gerrymandering, a federal district court hero violates the Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, the First Amendment, and article I of the Constitution.
Congressional districts will eventually be redrawn, at least according to the results of the census in 2020, the self is the subject of another high-profile case centered on whether the trump administration may be citizens of a question that asks whether the people are US.
This is the second judgment by the court this term gerrymandering. Previously, in June, the court upheld a ruling against race-based gerrymandering in Virginia, if the find that the state has not stood the house of delegates to challenge the lower court decision.