Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims

Dec 2006
26,653
11,795
New Haven, CT
#1
Now that we have a SCOTUS in the fat orange turd's image, it's become as worthless and corrupt as he is.

Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims
VCIETEEX5YI6PAXE6EDW63LBKI.jpg
The Supreme Court’s conservatives decided Thursday that federal courts do not have a role to play in deciding whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far.

The 5 to 4 decision was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the court’s other conservatives.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.,” Roberts wrote. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented for the court’s liberals. “For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” she wrote.

Kagan underscored her disagreement by reading a lengthy excerpt of her dissent from the bench.

While the Supreme Court regularly scrutinizes electoral districts for racial gerrymandering, the justices have never found a state’s redistricting map so infected with politics that it violates the Constitution. Such a decision would have marked a dramatic change for how the nation’s political maps are drawn.

The court passed up the chance last term to settle the issue of whether courts have a role in policing partisan gerrymandering, sending back on technical rulings challenges to a Republican-drawn plan in Wisconsin and the challenged Maryland map.

There’s been less reticence outside the Supreme Court. With recent decisions in Ohio and Michigan, federal courts in five states have struck down maps as partisan gerrymanders. And last fall, voters in Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Utah either took redistricting away from politicians or limited their power.

Last June, the justices said the Maryland case was not ready for them and sent it back. In November, a unanimous three-judge panel found that Democrats had unconstitutionally targeted Republican voters in the 6th Congressional District. The legislature had redrawn the district, which previously stretched across the top of the state, to dip down and take in Democratic strongholds in the Washington suburbs.

After the 2011 redistricting, a Democrat won the seat previously held by a Republican. There was an open election in the district in November, when Democrat David Trone defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by a wide margin.

“The massive and unnecessary reshuffling of the Sixth District, involving one-half of its population and dictated by party affiliation and voting history, had no other cause than the intended actions of the controlling Democratic officials to burden Republican voters by converting the district” into a Democratic one wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.



Rather than redraw the map, as the federal judges had ordered, Democratic Attorney General Brian E. Frosh decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. That put him at odds with the state’s Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who also won reelection in November and has pushed three times for a constitutional amendment that would have an independent commission redraw boundaries.


The Supreme Court had also sent back the North Carolina case last term, telling a panel of three federal judges to decide whether challengers in that state had the legal standing to bring the challenge. The judges said they did, and also found that the legislature’s efforts violated constitutional protections of equal protection and free speech.

The North Carolina legislature “drew a plan designed to subordinate the interests of non-Republican voters not because they believe doing so advances any democratic, constitutional, or public interest, but because, as the chief legislative mapdrawer openly acknowledged, the General Assembly’s Republican majority ‘think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,’ ” wrote Judge James A. Wynn Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

“But that is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative mapdrawers to make.”

Wynn was referring to comments from a legislative leader after a previous map was struck down as an example of racial gerrymandering that made clear politics was at the heart of the new map.

Much more and videos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.07f6d1c8b8c5
 
Likes: Clara007
Dec 2015
16,986
15,915
Arizona
#3
This: Justice Elena Kagan dissented for the court’s liberals. “For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” she wrote.

A constitutional violation!
Thinking....thinking....what's that called in grade school?? AH..yes. It's called CHEATING.
AND that's the MO of the Republican Party---want more proof??
Look who's sitting in the White House.
 
Likes: tristanrobin
Nov 2012
10,824
9,016
nirvana
#7
Now that we have a SCOTUS in the fat orange turd's image, it's become as worthless and corrupt as he is.

Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims
View attachment 4211
The Supreme Court’s conservatives decided Thursday that federal courts do not have a role to play in deciding whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far.

The 5 to 4 decision was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the court’s other conservatives.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.,” Roberts wrote. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented for the court’s liberals. “For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” she wrote.

Kagan underscored her disagreement by reading a lengthy excerpt of her dissent from the bench.

While the Supreme Court regularly scrutinizes electoral districts for racial gerrymandering, the justices have never found a state’s redistricting map so infected with politics that it violates the Constitution. Such a decision would have marked a dramatic change for how the nation’s political maps are drawn.

The court passed up the chance last term to settle the issue of whether courts have a role in policing partisan gerrymandering, sending back on technical rulings challenges to a Republican-drawn plan in Wisconsin and the challenged Maryland map.

There’s been less reticence outside the Supreme Court. With recent decisions in Ohio and Michigan, federal courts in five states have struck down maps as partisan gerrymanders. And last fall, voters in Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Utah either took redistricting away from politicians or limited their power.

Last June, the justices said the Maryland case was not ready for them and sent it back. In November, a unanimous three-judge panel found that Democrats had unconstitutionally targeted Republican voters in the 6th Congressional District. The legislature had redrawn the district, which previously stretched across the top of the state, to dip down and take in Democratic strongholds in the Washington suburbs.

After the 2011 redistricting, a Democrat won the seat previously held by a Republican. There was an open election in the district in November, when Democrat David Trone defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by a wide margin.

“The massive and unnecessary reshuffling of the Sixth District, involving one-half of its population and dictated by party affiliation and voting history, had no other cause than the intended actions of the controlling Democratic officials to burden Republican voters by converting the district” into a Democratic one wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.



Rather than redraw the map, as the federal judges had ordered, Democratic Attorney General Brian E. Frosh decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. That put him at odds with the state’s Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who also won reelection in November and has pushed three times for a constitutional amendment that would have an independent commission redraw boundaries.


The Supreme Court had also sent back the North Carolina case last term, telling a panel of three federal judges to decide whether challengers in that state had the legal standing to bring the challenge. The judges said they did, and also found that the legislature’s efforts violated constitutional protections of equal protection and free speech.

The North Carolina legislature “drew a plan designed to subordinate the interests of non-Republican voters not because they believe doing so advances any democratic, constitutional, or public interest, but because, as the chief legislative mapdrawer openly acknowledged, the General Assembly’s Republican majority ‘think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,’ ” wrote Judge James A. Wynn Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

“But that is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative mapdrawers to make.”

Wynn was referring to comments from a legislative leader after a previous map was struck down as an example of racial gerrymandering that made clear politics was at the heart of the new map.

Much more and videos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.07f6d1c8b8c5
It’s a double edge sword. If the ruling is it’s a political issue, then that means Congress, and in this case the House should consider ways to politically punish states that engage in this activity through withholding of federal funds, and other means by which the states depend on the federal government for support. Since this has been ruled a political issue, those states cannot then further ask the court for relief, as those punative measures by Congress are political, as those representatives were chosen by the people.
 
Apr 2013
38,050
26,062
La La Land North
#9
What is the worst to me is that it appears the SC said that since this is in the political arena, it needs a political solution, not a legal one. That in itself is a fine hair to be splitting.

But worse, they admit that gerrymandering based on race would be unconstitutional. Are they claiming that some if not most were drawn based on that?

Kagan is my new hero(x?).