Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To GOP-Gerrymandered Map In Wisconsin

[Gothmog]

Source: Talking Points memorandum

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge brought against the Republican-drawn legislative map in Wisconsin, in an unanimous decision that said the challengers who had sued over the map did not have standing.

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-wisconsin-gerrymander

[Gothmog]

1. Breaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Gill for Lack of Standing

This leaves Maryland case http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99583

Link to tweet

[Princess Turandot]

14. But they *didn't* dismiss Gill (the Wisconsin case)...

They ruled that the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated standing, and remanded it back to the lower court to give them another opportunity to try to do so. They *could* have dismissed it, which would have ended the case altogether.

The ruling:

Where a plaintiff has failed to demonstrate standing, this Court usually directs dismissal. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 354. Here, however, where the case concerns an un-settled kind of claim that the Court has not agreed upon, the con-tours and justiciability of which are unresolved, the case is remanded to the District Court to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes.

[Archae]

2. Great. We're screwed.

[snacker]

7. Yup.

Damn.

[regnaD kciN]

3. If it was unanimous, the flaws in the case must have been gaping...

As much as we might like to frame it as such, this wasn’t a conservative-versus-liberal decision.

[DallasNE]

22. The Merits Were Not Considered

In order to show damages you must be a registered voter in Wisconsin, perhaps even in one of the Gerrymandered districts. If you can't show damages you lack standing. The surprise is that the lower court did not rule in a like manner. Presumably, this can be fixed easily and move forward.

[Gothmog]

4. No ruling in Maryland case

Link to tweet

[elleng]

13. Important locally at least.

I was concerned on the merits of this one; get to keep my rep.

[MattP]

5. Free speech is money not voting to Roberts

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. It's a THREE-box day here at #SCOTUS! Opinions in 5 minutes.

This likely means 4-5 opinions, or perhaps fewer and one of them is a long opinion

Link to tweet

It's a THREE-box day here at #SCOTUS! Opinions in 5 minutes.

Link to tweet

Next: Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida. Kennedy has the court's decision, holding that the existence of probable cause does NOT bar a First Amendment retaliation claim in this case. Thomas was the only justice to dissent. #SCOTUS

Link to tweet

Here's the Lozman decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-21_p8k0.pdf … #SCOTUS

Link to tweet

NO

NO

YOU CAN'T MAKE ME

Link to tweet

[lagomorph777]

8. OK as near as I can tell, this is how SCOTUS scrota are spinning it.

The plaintiffs didn't include voters from every single gerrymandered district. They should have included more voters.

Looks like there's still room to correct this injustice by beating SCROTUS at their own game.

Too late for November, but the Blue Wave will likely overwhelm the gerrymander in WI anyway.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Here in PA, we were able to prevail because we could show our gerrymandered map was in violation

of the state Constitution, and so the SCOTUS refused to hear the GOP whining about it being redrawn by the PA State Supreme Court after that court had ruled it unconstitutional (and the SCOTUS then cited the 10th Amendment for its non-involvement). The parallel PA cases regarding gerrymandering in general that moved through the federal courts had been rejected by the SCOTUS.

[turbinetree]

9. Next up how to break up unions and make the country a National Right for Less country..............

when individuals vote to have a collective representation on a 50+1 majority...............

[elleng]

11. Supreme Court Avoids an Answer on Partisan Gerrymandering.

'The Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide two challenges to partisan gerrymandering, citing technical grounds.

In a case from Wisconsin, the court said plaintiffs there had not proved they had suffered the sort of direct injury to give them standing to sue. The court sent the case back to the lower courts to allow the plaintiffs to try again.

In a second case, from Maryland, the court ruled against the challengers in an unsigned opinion.

The decisions were a setback for critics of partisan gerrymandering, who had hoped that the Supreme Court would decide the cases on their merits and rule in their favor, transforming American democracy by subjecting to close judicial scrutiny oddly shaped districts that amplify one party’s political power.

The court has never struck down a voting district as a partisan gerrymander, in which the political party in power draws maps to favor its candidates. . .

In the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333, Republican voters argued that Democratic state lawmakers had redrawn a congressional district to retaliate against citizens who had supported its longtime incumbent, Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, a Republican. That retaliation, the plaintiffs said, violated the First Amendment by diluting their voting power.

“The 2011 gerrymander was devastatingly effective,” the plaintiffs wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court, saying that “no other congressional district anywhere in the nation saw so large a swing in its partisan complexion following the 2010 census.”

Mr. Bartlett had won his 2010 race by a margin of 28 percentage points. In 2012, he lost to Representative John Delaney, a Democrat, by a 21-point margin.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/politics/supreme-court-wisconsin-maryland-gerrymander-vote.html?

Maryland case important for some of us.

[still_one]

12. Not good. However, the U.S. Senate and governorships are done statewide, so if people within those

states want to change things they better come out and vote, and not follow the LIE that there is no difference between republicans and Democrats.

In 2016, every Democratic running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and those were progressive Democrats by any standard.

GOTV


or pay the consequences

[JaneQPublic]

15. Worth Watching: MSNBC's "How to Fix an Election"

It's a really informative documentary on the gerrymandering problem and the role of the GOP's "Red Map" strategy to implement state lawmakers to redraw districts to their advantage.

It was on last night but is available on their website:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/how-to-fix-an-election-episode

[procon]

16. This case will be modified as the Justices indicated and resubmitted.

The Justices actually seemed somewhat sympathetic to the petitioners, but they presented their challenge in such a poorly crafted way that it was doomed from the start. Hopefully the plaintiffs will have a second chance to meet the criteria for standing demanded by the Court.

“We leave for another day consideration of other possible theories of harm not presented here and whether those theories might present justiciable claims giving rise to statewide remedies,” Roberts said.

Rather than directly dismiss the case, Roberts said that the high court was sending it back to the lower court level “so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes.”

[riversedge]

17. OMG. This is heartbreaking.

[Gothmog]

28. The North Carolina case could be the next shot at this

Link to tweet

[NotASurfer]

18. Any word on how the Justices split on these opinions?

[Shrek]

21. The split was 9-0

Not a partisan outcome.

[ewagner]

19. Disappointed but not surprised.

I knew the Court would find some reason to "punt" on the case. "Standing" is sort of weak but it did the trick for the conservatives on the court...I think the liberals on the court concurred because the result was to remand the case back to the lower court. If you read Sotomayor's concurring opinion, it said that although she concurred on standing in the district of residence of the plaintiffs, the rehearing of the case by the lower court might prove to have only a state-wide remedy.... That's what I'm hoping for...(I think the "standing" argument was BS)

[milestogo]

20. When the Democrats take WI back

We can gerrymander to our hearts content.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

23. "Lack of standing" is the lowest level at which a case can be dismissed.

It does not get to the merits of the case; it only says that the plaintiff lacks the requisite interest in the outcome to bring the action. For example, as a California resident if I brought a lawsuit against the Nevada AG for something that didn't directly affect me (gerrymandering NV districts), it would probably be dismissed for lack of standing.

This doesn't decide whether the plaintiff's claims are actionable. It only says the wrong person is bringing the lawsuit. That's why the SCOTUS decision was unanimous. This was not a win for the GOP, no matter how they spin it. The plaintiff needs to read the opinion to understand who has standing to bring the action, and file a new suit accordingly.

I worked as a legal assistant for a state circuit court judge a long time ago. Standing was the very first thing we looked at when evaluating a case. Only then did we proceed to the motions, of which the defendant's Motion to Dismiss was usually the first one on the list.

[former9thward]

25. It is not a simple as you think.

Do you really think the lower courts did not look at standing? Every court does. In this case the SC decided they did not want to decide the issue at this time so they conveniently found something none of the lower courts could find. The SC is the SC and they can do those things.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. All states have something in their constitution about who

and how legislative districts are drawn. That's a power left to the states by the 10th Amendment as noted above. I think the Supreme Court would like a way to rein in this kind of super partisan gerrymandering, but not step on the 10th Amendment.

IMHO, the way to do that would be to mandate a range of scores for compactness and partisan lean and perhaps a standard algorithm to measure these. Using both those score together would prevent the "cracking" and "packing" used extensively in this type of extreme partisan gerrymandering.

[Gothmog]

27. State parties appear to have standing

Link to tweet

Link to tweet