Supreme Court to hear partisan gerrymandering case

Share

Supreme Court to hear partisan gerrymandering case

Sometimes, modern politicians openly admit that they have create redistricting plans that favor their party, because such gerrymandering has never been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so those politicians have no reluctance to set their partisan goals and achieve them. Even former President Barack Obama has vowed to fight against the practice's misuses and abuses during his post-presidency, though the Supreme Court of the United States may beat him to the punch.

Wisconsin Republicans drew the maps in 2011 after they took full control of state government in the 2010 elections. In the last case, four justices sought to curtail that role by declaring it a political question outside their jurisdiction. He said he expects that after briefs are filed in the case over the summer, oral arguments would be heard in November or December, followed by a ruling in spring 2018. He said: "I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process".

The Supreme Court declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, a potentially fundamental change in the way American elections are conducted. From their minority share of the vote, the Wisconsin GOP won 60 of the Assembly's 99 seats. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80, would not go that far; he may be the swing vote in the new case - if he doesn't retire over the summer.

WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court Monday agreed to consider whether there are constitutional limits to how far lawmakers can go in drawing electoral districts to maximize partisan political advantage, a case that could have profound implications for US elections.

This left fertile ground in the rest of the state for Republicans to win more legislative seats.

Texas has its own redistricting case, too.

Kennedy said he could envision a successful challenge "where a state enacts a law that has the goal and effect of subjecting a group of voters or their party to disfavored treatment".

Given the impact gerrymandering has had on recent elections, the Wisconsin case is being hailed as potentially "revolutionary", one that could have "massive implications for redistricting and political power in America".

The measure, call the efficiency gap, shows how cracking (breaking up blocs of Democratic voters) and packing (concentrating Democrats within certain districts) results in wasted votes - excess votes for winners in safe districts and perpetually inadequate votes for the losers. If they find that the "efficiency gap" model presents courts with a "judicially discernible and manageable standard", then it will be a major step in moderating one of the most pernicious threats our democracy faces.

The Wisconsin court was not so definitive.

The lower court agreed that this was exactly the type of standard that the Supreme Court was talking about, and it struck down the state redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. They argued that the Democrats are at a disadvantage because their voters are concentrated in Milwaukee and Madison. State and federal legislative district boundaries are reconfigured every decade after the census so that each one holds about same number of people.

Do you think the state of Wisconsin stands to lose or gain anything?

The situation is similar in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, where lines drawn by Republicans have given the GOP the lion's share of the seats in Congress and state legislatures. "The Supreme Court's ruling could give us back our right to have our vote count".

Share

Advertisement

© 2015 Leader Call. All Rights reserved.