Supreme Court may decide against Va. Republicans in redistricting fight

[jpak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-may-decide-against-va-republicans-in-redistricting-fight/2016/03/21/eb7bfac0-ef79-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html

The Supreme Court on Monday seemed likely to leave in place a lower court’s decision that Virginia improperly considered race when drawing congressional districts.

Operating without the late Justice Antonin Scalia, it would require only four members of the court to agree with a judicial panel that the Republican-led legislature improperly packed African American voters into the 3rd Congressional District, which is represented by the state’s lone black congressman, Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, a Democrat.

The lower court said the map violated the admonition that race not be the predominant factor in drawing legislative districts.

Washington lawyer Michael A. Carvin, representing Republican congressmen whose districts have been changed by the lower court, said the legislature’s primary objectives were to protect incumbents and maintain the core of existing districts. Both are acceptable motives by Supreme Court precedent.

<more>

[MariaThinks]

1. this is fun.

[Hortensis]

2. "Partisan gerrymandering protecting incumbents" ok.

Really? I didn't know that. I assumed it was to protect the rights of voters. Why would we want to protect incumbents from accountability?

Federal judges said the commonwealth’s plan veered from partisan gerrymandering aimed at protecting incumbents — for which the Supreme Court has shown a high tolerance

The emphasis on race as the sole factor afforded remedy is warped too.