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

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

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

By Washington Post Staff
June 27 at 10:12 AM

The justices agreed to look at the issue after lower courts determined the congressional maps in North Carolina and Maryland were so politically tilted that they violated voters' rights. The North Carolina map was drawn by Republicans, the Maryland district by the state's dominant Democrats.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/06/27/supreme-court-says-federal-courts-dont-have-a-role-in-deciding-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/

---

Original post:

CockedAndLoadedHat Retweeted

https://twitter.com/Popehat

BREAKING: Supreme Court's conservative rule 5-4 that the federal judiciary cannot rein in partisan gerrymanders. This is the nightmare scenario for voting rights advocates. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf ...

Link to tweet

-- -- -- --

No news source yet.

WaPo has a banner, but no story yet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/

Now they do.

-- -- -- --

Live blog of opinions
By Andrew Hamm on Jun 27, 2019 at 8:12 am

We're live-blogging as the Supreme Court releases its final opinions of the term. Join us. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/live-blog-of-opinions-46/

"The court sends both the Maryland case and the North Carolina case back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.."

-- -- -- --

BREAKING: #scotus conservatives say federal courts can't judge whether extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the constitution

Link to tweet

[MattP]

1. Gerrymandered court makes gerrymandered decision

[underpants]

2. 😡

[RKP5637]

3. The crumbling democracy. Dumb decision IMO. n/t

[Faygo Kid]

4. Apocalypse

This is a disaster; Congress (the House) MUST step up.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. What can the House do by itself?

It can't pass any laws and even if it impeaches, it can't get any convictions out of the Senate.

You need the disinterested American non-voters to STEP UP (not just the disenfranchised who we do advocate for) and stop sitting out mid-year elections when state legislatures are often elected and seated.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. WaPo breaking

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

By Washington Post Staff
June 27 at 10:12 AM

The justices agreed to take the cases after lower courts determined the congressional maps in North Carolina and Maryland were so politically tilted that they violated voters’ rights. The North Carolina map was drawn by Republicans, the Maryland district by the state’s dominant Democrats.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/06/27/supreme-court-says-federal-courts-dont-have-a-role-in-deciding-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/?utm_term=.dde0c3c2b960

That makes no sense (outside of conservative philosophy - unless it's against them. )

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. They just now got the article to go with the banner. Thanks.

And good morning. Or some sort of morning.

So far, the story is by "staff." Robert Barnes is busy keyboarding even as we speak.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Yup - had gotten the breaking banner

but figured SCOTUS Blog had something initially since they live-blog it.

And top of the morning to you too!

[Hugin]

6. Whelp... I guess I'm done here.

The status-quo enshrined in law.

Gerrymandering the majority into the minority is now the law of the land.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Democracy is done, time to increase the court with patriots and reverse this madness

[Afromania]

9. So, who has the jurisdiction? Fuck these momos.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Oddly enough

the practice of "gerrymandering" has been going on since 1812 (when the term was coined) - so 207 years. Over that time, I don't think there has ever been any federal law explicitly forbidding the practice.

And because of this type of hair-splitting by the SCOTUS, people wonder why laws eventually become hundreds of pages long and so verbose and convoluted - it's all because nefarious people exploited loopholes in earlier laws and the courts decided to rule based on the literal written text of the law without considering an implied additional scope of application and meaning (when they should).

[24601]

46. It's a valid question. The states retain jurisdiction over gerrymandering for partisan advantage.

The US Supreme Court has not overturned state Supreme Court decisions that are decided on issues of State Constitutions or Statutes. It does have to be based on interpretation of that State's Constitution or law and I believe if a State Supreme Court overturned redistricting based the state court's interpretation that the US (and not the State) Constitution prohibited gerrymandering for partisan advantage, it would also be vacated as not an issue currently under federal jurisdiction. With respect to state jurisdiction, USSC doesn't intervene when a state passes an amendment constraining legislatures or even removing them altogether from redistricting.

Federal jurisdiction could be established amending the US Constitution to prohibit partisan advantage gerrymandering or by a federal statute that implements powers delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution. The overall basis for jurisdiction most likely would be the 10th Amendments which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling does not affect federal jurisdiction over statutes implementing the 15th (Race, Color, Previous Servitude), 19th (Sex) or 26th (18 and older) Amendments which grant Congress enforcement power via legislation. Federal jurisdiction would be upheld for gerrymandering that pretended to be for partisan advantage if the true primary purpose was to negate these amendments. Conversely, it's unlikely federal jurisdiction would be upheld to a claim that gerrymandering was intended to subverting the above amendments if facts establish the true underlying purpose was partisan advantage.

It's possible that Federal Legislation addressing political gerrymandering could be upheld pursuant to other provisions, e.g. the 14th Amendment.

[rurallib]

10. The big payoff for McConnell blocking Obama and Garland

[budkin]

36. That was the win that just keeps winning for the GOP

And basically guarantees that they have ultimate power FOREVER despite being in the minority.

[earthside]

14. What about state courts?

Might this mean that the state Supreme Courts would then have the definitive role?

[hlthe2b]

15. One would think...which given the impact on state-run FEDERAL elections, this is abysmal

and a total dereliction of Federal/SCOTUS responsibilities, IMO.

[Thekaspervote]

18. The way I read it...yes

[Jose Garcia]

22. Yes. And some state courts have already done this

[richdj25]

16. State Courts

Couldn't state courts simply decide otherwise?

[Buckeyeblue]

21. Yes. State courts can rule.

Some have. For instance Pennsylvania state SC ruled that a new map should be drawn.

[Tactical Peek]

17. Fuck those five.

GRRRRRRRRRRR!

[DeminPennswoods]

19. I don't think this is a big surprise or even the end of

democracy as we know it. It's clear the Supreme Court did not want to get itself in the middle of this particular partisan fight. It was clear when the federal court and then Alito rejected the Pennsylvania GOP's court challenge to the state supreme court's decision re-drawing our congressional districts.

This issue needs to be fought out at the state level and in state courts using the state constitution or ballot initiatives where it's possible.

Let's face it, gerry-mandering, goes back to the very beginning of the county. If the founders thought it was a bad thing, they'd have acted to preclude it. But, I'm sure lawyers and activists will find other arguments to make when bringing legal challenges.

[cbelle1039]

20. If this decision does not rally Democrats to get out the vote in state and local elections, we have

to take what we get. For far too long, the Democrats have focused on national elections to the weakening of their positions in state and local elections. This decision should be a clarion call for that complacency to change across the nation. The vote was so hard to get for minorities and women. They must use what was fought for so hard and that for which people were beaten and killed for. The governed MUST get out and govern themselves by using the all important tool of voting. Even in heavily gerrymandered districts Democrats can overcome by rocking the vote.

Also, we cannot overlook the impact of climate change on migration patterns and what that impact will mean for gerrymandering. Democrats need to get out ahead of this issue and begin now to study these migration patterns will affect voting districts in future state and local elections. But who is listening to those of us who have long been decrying the lack of energy behind getting Democratic voters out in state and local elections?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

23. From a comment at Joe.My.God. in the thread about the citizenship question:

BREAKING: SCOTUS Swats Down Census Citizenship Question For Now, Remands Case To Lower Court

Ninja0980 • 15 minutes ago

One of the immediate consequences of the #SCOTUS gerrymandering decision is that Common Cause is almost certainly going to file a new case with the North Carolina Supreme Court. Where they are guaranteed to win and unrig the maps just in that state.

Link to tweet

Democrats have a 6-1 advantage on the North Carolina Supreme Court.

[BlueIdaho]

24. That goes a long way toward answering my question...

If federal courts are out - can state courts decide these cases? It sounds like the answer is yes?

[former9thward]

37. State courts can't overrule the Supreme court.

[Massacure]

38. The Supreme Court only said that it isn't the role of federal courts to step into these cases

The Supreme Court essentially said it is up to each state to figure out on its own how to draw electoral districts and that the federal courts shouldn't intervene. The Supreme Court did nothing to prevent one group from suing another in a state-run court over gerrymandering.

[former9thward]

40. To be successful the plaintiff would have to show a violation of the state Constitution.

Very unlikely since state Constitutions don't have sections that would apply. That is why these type of suits have been filed in federal court rather than state.

[DeminPennswoods]

44. The Pennsylvania constitution does not directly address

federal congressional districts, but it does specifically direct how districts are to be drawn. That's the section of the law the PA Supreme Court used to find the Congressional districts non-compliant and to order a new map.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all, the other states have language in their constitutions on the procedure to draw new districts after completion of the census. States have been doing this since the inception of the census about 240 years ago.

[former9thward]

45. I am pretty sure they don't.

That is why there are suits like this. If there is any language it would be that the legislature will draw the lines.

[DeminPennswoods]

47. You can always research this question

nt

[former9thward]

48. So can you.

[DeminPennswoods]

41. Yes, state courts interpret the state's constitution

In Pennsylvania, the lawsuit against the extremely gerry-mandered Congressional map was brought in state court citing the state constitution. The PA supreme court decided the case in favor of the plaintiff, tossed the map and imposed its own new map when the R-controlled state legislature failed to provide the court a map that met constitutional provisions. The Rs went to federal court and petitioned the USSC to block the new map. The federal and USSC refused to intervene.

Plaintiffs wanting new maps are going to have to study their state constitution, see what re-districting provisions apply and sue in state courts.

There is also an nationwide organization called Fairdistricts. Here in PA, the group got bi-partisan sponsored bills introduced in the state house and state senate. Over 1/2 of the state house members co-sponsored the bill and around 1/3 of the state senate. And that was before Dems made big gains in the 2018 mid-terms. Unfortunately, the GOP chair of the state house government committee hijacked the bill and replaced the original language making it unpalatable to supporters. The bills have been re-introduced and with reduced GOP majorities and a change in leadership on the house government committee, they have a much better chance to pass. Gov Wolf has also done sort of an end run around the GOP and set up his own commission to get feedback and develop recommendations. I did a bit of work with fairdistricts and you would be surprised at the number of people, of all political stripes, who feel that these artifically contrived "safe seats" are not a good thing.

Let me just add that the state house districts are still heavily gerrymadered, yet Dems managed to pick up a net of 11 seats in the state house. The senate districts are less gerrymandered because there are fewer districts, but Dems managed to pick up 6 seats.

[DeminPennswoods]

42. Excellent. Exactly what happened in PA

nt

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Then they are saying the federal government has no interest in

protecting the right to vote.

[cstanleytech]

26. Roberts and the other 4 justices will go down in history as being on par with the justices in the

Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

[Everyman Jackal]

27. I can find many places in The Constitution which says who can vote.

Who, what and where but not anything about voting districts and how they are made. I think that will take a Constitutional Amendment. Even then how would it work? Would The Supreme Court rule on every voting district in the country that someone brings to court? Just my opinion, I haven't any knowledge of the law on this matter.

[sl8]

28. Opinions (PDF):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

[mahatmakanejeeves]

29. One thing we can see today is that the Trump Era began in early 2016 when Mitch McConnell decided to

Kevin M. Kruse Retweeted

One thing we can see today is that the Trump Era began in early 2016 when Mitch McConnell decided to refuse to consider any nominee to scotus. Nothing GOPs have signed off ok or backed under Trump is a bigger attack on the structure of govt. they were ready in advance of Trump.

Link to tweet

[Greybnk48]

30. Wisconsin is left swinging in the wind, with a cesspool

of corruption for a State Supreme Court. Two or three on the court were gamed in by Republicans. We have an ignorant partisan asshole, Robin Vos, who won his election with 17,000 votes thanks to a gerrymander, running the State like a McConnell mini-me.

We're done, with no way out.

[forthemiddle]

31. How were they gamed by Republicans?

Maybe I’m reading your post wrong? But Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices are elected positions.
If a spot coms up during the 10 year term, the Governor does appoint someone to fill the vacancy, but then they must stand for election in the next year in which there is no other Supreme Court elections.

[Greybnk48]

49. We have not had a clean election in almost 10 years in Wisconsin

including the Supreme Court. There have always been anomalies or glitches, and surprise, when they figure it out the Republican ALWAYS wins.

We even had a woman in Waukesha running voting tabulators in her fucking basement! Kathy Nicklaus.

http://scottwalkerwatch.com/2011/09/30/waukesha-county-clerk-kathy-nicklaus-learns-valuable-lesson-break-the-law-again-and-ge

She took one seat away from the Wisconsin Supreme Court through a blatant cheat after seating Walker in a blatant cheat.

The Koch brothers own us now. They were who Walker answered to at any rate. And the Bradley's, et. al.

[turbinetree]

33. The RatF*cking can now continue ....................

.................

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/partisan-gerrymandering-isnt-the-supreme-courts-problem-anymore/

And Kagan is correct in her opinion and Roberts is just an asshole

[Dave Starsky]

34. You HAVE to vote, and GET OTHERS to vote, in EVERY election.

It doesn't matter what it's for. If a Republican is running for City Animal Control Officer, it is your duty to ensure that motherfucker doesn't win.

EVERY election is important. In fact, the smaller the scale, the more important it is, and the more impact that we can have. State legislators and governors decide all the gerrymandering horseshit. Change them, and the rest falls.

I am preaching to the converted, I know. But I still run into people who only vote every two or four years. Vote EVERY time, whatever it is.

[ananda]

35. Ugly. This is very bad news!

Sigh

[czarjak]

39. Just to quote my government teacher in high school, Bonnie Hagood...

"Gerrymandering is cheating" Congratulations, you all should be so proud.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

43. Court's out for the summer!

Hat tip, a commenter at SCOTUSblog who asked that they link to this again:

Live blog of orders (Update: Completed)
By Andrew Hamm on Jun 28, 2019 at 9:15 am