Could The Supreme Court End Gerrymandering For Good?

Could The Supreme Court End Gerrymandering For Good?

Could The Supreme Court End Gerrymandering For Good?

He voiced doubt that the Constitution authorizes courts to step in at all. Don Blankenship, the chairman of the company, then spent more than three million dollars to elect his candidate to the State Supreme Court, and that justice then provided the deciding vote to overturn the judgment against the company. As long ago as 1986, a Supreme Court plurality observed that "a$3 s long as redistricting is done by a legislature, it should not be very hard to prove that the likely political consequences of the reapportionment were intended".

Justice Kennedy questioned the NLRB's counsel whether the arbitration agreements at issue truly prohibit employees' right to engage in concerted activity, noting that employees could still work together to obtain the same counsel, share information, and strategize about their cases; they were merely prohibited from joining their cases and litigating collectively.

However, the 5-4 opinion included a concurrence by Justice Kennedy declaring perhaps a proper standard could be developed. When asked why, a Republican lawmaker who headed the redistricting process said, "Because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats".

"What incentive is there for a voter to exercise his vote?" Sotomayor asked how political gerrymander "helps our system of government".

As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his remarks on the Wisconsin case October 3, the courts "authority and legitimacy" would be hurt if it struck down legislative districts in so many states. Karen Hobert Flynn (left), president of Common Cause, was a speaker Paul Smith, the attorney arguing against Wisconsin's gerrymandered maps, exits to Supreme Court. Indeed, the social science here is not that hard. He narrowed in on the threshold issue of standing, saying he thought it was "arresting" that the challengers could bring a statewide challenge instead of district-by-district.

The lower court judges accepted the formula. Alito also chimed in on whether the court should take over from the political branches. As usual, Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing at all. Under the voodoo math of gerrymandering, Republicans "won" 60% of the state legislature. In fact, a Supreme Court nominee was rejected in 1987 simply because he had previously used marijuana.

Although Kennedy did not tip his hand, he had no questions for a lawyer challenging Wisconsin. But he has been reluctant to do so because of his inability to find a solution that won't lead to bigger problems - the federal courts being dragged into every redistricting dispute that crops up across the country.

Catalonia will declare independence in days, says region's president
A spokeswoman for the Socialists and Democrats Party said the Spanish constitution needed to be recognised and respected. Spain's interior minister said the 5,000 extra officers would stay in Catalonia as long as necessary.

Smith responded: "Well, I don't think there's anything unusual about using the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to regulate the abusive management of state elections by state government".

Partisan gerrymandering involves manipulating the size and shape of electoral districts in order to favor one political party over the other.

In the recent updates after Tuesday hearing, it all seems to come down to Judge Kennedy's vote. They sued the state, arguing that its partisan gerrymander was so extreme that it violated their First Amendment rights to association and free speech and the "one person, one vote" principle enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment's equal-protection clause. Wisconsin appealed that ruling to the high court. The problem is if the court should police the practice and if so is there a workable standard the court can apply? Packing sweeps members of a particular group into one district, so as to allow the other party to win the leftover districts.

There might well be a good argument for reining in partisan gerrymandering.

And in a brief signed by Arizona Republican Sen.

But the justices have shied away from wading into partisan gerrymandering, mainly for lack of a "manageable standard" to define it, Rave said.

"Special interest groups, fueled by hidden funders with deep pockets and skin in the political game, are now focused on influencing redistricting", Moser wrote.

Related news