Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, a potentially fundamental change in the way American elections are conducted.

The justices regularly are called to invalidate state electoral maps that have been illegally drawn to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes.

But the Supreme Court has never found a plan unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. If it does, it would have a revolutionary impact on the reapportionment that comes after the 2020 election, and could come at the expense of Republicans, who control the process in the majority of states.

The court accepted a case from Wisconsin, where a divided panel of three federal judges last year ruled that the state’s Republican leadership in 2011 pushed through a plan so partisan that it violated the Constitution’s First Amendment and equal rights protections.

The issue will be briefed and argued in the Supreme Court term that begins in October.

It comes at a time when the relatively obscure subject of reapportionment has taken on new significance, with many blaming the drawing of safely partisan seats for a polarized and gridlocked Congress. Former president Barack Obama has said that one of his post-presidency projects will be to combat partisan gerrymanders after the 2020 Census.

Both parties draw congressional and legislative districts to their own advantage–a challenge to a congressional plan drawn by Maryland Democrats is making its way through the courts.

But Republicans have more to lose because they control so many more state legislatures. The Republican National Committee and a dozen large Republican states have asked the court to reverse the Wisconsin decision.

That state’s legislative leaders asked the Supreme Court in their brief to reject any effort that “wrests control of districting away from the …read more

Source:: The Denver Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *