Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morrison defends his handling of SVP arrested twice for child sex crimes
Next Post: Question of the Day
Posted in:
By Hannah Meisel
* The U.S. Supreme court this morning declined to rule on the merits of Gill v. Whitford, better known as the Wisconsin gerrymandering case and Benisek v. Lamone, a Maryland case involving a Democratically gerrymandered district. Instead, the court remanded the Wisconsin case back to the District Court level, ruling the 12 plaintiffs lacked proper standing to sue, as they failed to show injury from the entire Assembly map. On remand, the plaintiffs will have a chance to evaluate their claims of gerrymandering specific to their district.
From the opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan…
To be sure, remedying each plaintiff ’s vote dilution injury “requires revising only such districts as are necessary to reshape [that plaintiff ’s] district—so that the [plaintiff] may be unpacked or uncracked, as the case may be.” But with enough plaintiffs joined together—attacking all the packed and cracked districts in a statewide gerrymander—those obligatory revisions could amount to a wholesale restructuring of the State’s districting plan.
* From WaPo…
The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a decision on when partisan gerrymandering goes too far, ruling against the challengers of a Republican-drawn map in Wisconsin and a Democratic redistricting in Maryland.
The rulings in the separate cases once again put off a decision on when courts can find that partisan efforts to keep parties in power goes so far as to be unconstitutional. But the court again left open a path for such challenges.
It was a technical resolution of what has seemed to hold the promise of being a landmark decision about extreme efforts to give one party advantage over another.
While the court routinely polices the drawing of electoral maps to combat racial gerrymandering, it has never found that partisan efforts went too far. It has never settled on a test that judges could use to determine how much politics was too much.
The practical impact of the case is that legislation elections in Wisconsin this year will be conducted using the map challengers said overwhelmingly favors Republicans. The Maryland congressional districts will also remain the same, including the district that challengers said was drawn to elect a Democrat. The incumbent is not running for election.
However, as the WaPo article points out…
A pending challenge of North Carolina’s redistricting efforts could provide another case for the justices to consider the issue. In that battleground state, Republicans control 10 of 13 congressional districts. That case has plaintiffs challenging each district.
* Had the court ruled on the merits of the cases, it would have had major consequences for Illinois. Maybe the Wisconsin case will get back up to SCOTUS before the 2021 redistricting, or even that North Carolina case.
From Wisconsin Public Radio’s Shawn Johnson (PAR class of 2001)…
"This is definitely not the end of the road," says @skchheda, director of the Fair Elections Project. "There is no vindication for the state’s rigging of the maps and disenfranchising of our voters here." Says plaintiffs will examine their options.
— Shawn Johnson (@SJohnsonWPR) June 18, 2018
Some really great podcast deep dives on gerrymandering:
- Planet Money’s recent episode “Ungerrymandering Florida”
- More Perfect (from Radiolab)’s two episodes “The Political Thicket” and “Who’s Gerry and Why Is He So Bad at Drawing Maps?”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 1:49 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morrison defends his handling of SVP arrested twice for child sex crimes
Next Post: Question of the Day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
== “Had the court ruled on the merits of the cases, it would have had major consequences for Illinois.“ ==
Not necessarily. The Illinois map most likely meets the various political gerrymandering tests established by the lower courts.
Comment by Highlands Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 1:54 pm
The biggest roar of WHOOOOOHOOOOO was just heard from the law offices on 30 N. LaSalle Street.
Comment by Taxedoutwest Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 2:07 pm
- Highlands - is right.
Believe it or not, based on the metric developed by the Wisconsin plaintiffs to measure politically biased maps (the “Efficiency Gap,”) Illinois’ map is not considered in violation.
Comment by Roman Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 2:13 pm
The 2016 electoral efficiency gap in Illinois was only +2.8% for Democrats. 54% Democratic vote 46% Republican vote. With a seat split of 11 D / 7 R. That gap could theoretically account for 1 extra D seat, but there were uncontested seats on both side so we can’t really draw a strong conclusion.
The “threshold” to show partisan gerrymandering I have seen is a multiple election average above 7 or 8 percent.
Comment by TrumpsSmallHands Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 2:23 pm
I hate all gerrymandering in all States including Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, California, North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc.
Also, I hate it when the courts do it too.
It should be computerized and have somewhat of a natural shape.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 3:35 pm
And here’s Jim Dey’s 2017 take on the more modest “efficiency gap” in Illinois: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-07/jim-dey-wisconsin-redistricting-case-no-help-illinois.html
Comment by Mike K Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 3:39 pm
It’s clear that the Supreme Court wasn’t buying the efficiency gap argument. They went out of their way to say that statewide statistical averages weren’t applicable. Instead they want individuals who can show specific harm to their ability to elect their own representative, not the legislature as a whole. That means voters in an area that naturally would be a swing area, but is gerrymandered to get specific results.
What makes it interesting is that 7 of the 9 justices agreed to remand, rather than dismiss the case. The opinion notes that dismissal is the usual result for this type of standing case. The fact that 7 justices want it remanded suggests that they want it to come before them again, but with a plaintiff that meets their criteria. A decision based on a voters in swing areas gerrymandered into safe seats could have a lot of implications in Illinois.
Comment by muon Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 4:00 pm
Great reporting.
Thanks.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Jun 18, 18 @ 4:59 pm
The numbers nerds at FiveThirtyEight also took a look at tricksy districting
http://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 12:49 pm