Gerrymandering Back at SCOTUS: Will They Rule for the People or for State Legislatures

Center of Attention for Possible Historical Ruling

Gerrymandering for Political Parties to Stay in Power

(Origin of the Word)

This is a big story from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU:

Background on using the phrase “Gerrymander” – in 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry backed a redistricting plan favoring his party, with one district so convoluted that it looked like a salamander. 

We have been calling that practice of manipulating electoral maps for political advantage gerrymandering ever since.

This story: On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court will once again attempt to tackle partisan gerrymandering when it hears challenges to the congressional maps in NC (re: Rucho v. Common Cause and Rucho v. League of Women Voters of NC) and in MD (re: Lamone v. Benisek). Rucho and Benisek are the first partisan gerrymandering cases to reach the Court since the Justices issued their decision in *Gill v. Whitford this past summer. 

These cases will give the High Court Justices an opportunity to set long-awaited legal limits on extreme partisan gerrymanders. The cases could be the Justices’ last chance to curb the worst abuses of our redistricting processes before the next cycle of map-drawing begins in 2021.

* Gill v. Whitford: In November 2016, the panel declared that the state house plan adopted by the then WI Republican-controlled legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of association. The ruling was the first time in over three decades that a federal court invalidated a redistricting plan for partisan bias.

After evaluating the constitutionality of the map with a three-part test, the panel concluded that the map displayed both bad intent and bad effect, citing evidence that the map drawers used special partisan measurements to ensure that the map maximized Republican advantages in assembly seats. Despite Democrats winning a majority of the statewide Assembly vote in 2012 and 2014, Republicans won sixty of the ninety-nine Assembly seats.

WI Republicans dispute the assertion that they intentionally engineered a biased map, arguing that partisan skews in the map reflect a natural geographic advantage they have in redistricting as a result of Democrats clustering in cities while Republicans are spread out more evenly throughout the state.

The court, however, said the state’s natural political geography “does not explain adequately the sizable disparate effect” seen in the previous two election cycles.

WI filed an appeal on February 24, 2017, asking the Supreme Court to review the decision striking down the map. On June 18, the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court permitted the WI State Assembly to intervene as defendants in the case.

On January 23, 2019, the high court granted in part the State Assembly's motion to * stay the case, postponing trial until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on partisan gerrymandering appeals from both NC and MD. That trial is now set for July 15, 2019. 

* Court Stay – the Legal Definition: To stop or to suspend a case, also known as a “stay of proceedings.” Means a case, or law suit, is suspended either indefinitely or until the occurrence of a condition imposed by the court is met. A stay can be imposed at any court level usually pending higher court decision.

My 2 cents: This is potentially a huge watershed moment in the overall voting rights issue. How will the high court rule, who will they side with: State partisan governments with anti-voting rights officials, or side with the people?

We are about to find out on way or the other.

Thanks for stopping by.