US Supreme Court Overturns Ruling in Michigan Gerrymandering Case: What it Means
Todd Spangler
Detroit Free Press
6:01 p.m. ET Oct. 21, 2019
Free Press editorial board members Mike Thompson and Brian Dickerson explain gerrymandering and how it affects elections.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially overturned a ruling which had called for nearly three dozen congressional and legislative districts in Michigan to be redrawn because they unfairly helped one political party.
The decision — which vacated an earlier ruling made by a three-judge panel by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati — had been widely expected since the Supreme Court decided in June that it would allow state courts to decide questions about political boundary lines rather than ruling on them itself.
"Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that decision involving cases brought regarding political boundary lines drawn in Maryland and North Carolina.
At the time of the decision, Republicans in Lansing had appealed an April ruling in the 6th Circuit which had ordered the governor and Legislature to redraw 34 districts — nine congressional, 10 state Senate and 15 state House districts — by Aug. 1 or it would do it for them.
The panel issued a 146-page opinion saying that Republicans who drew and enacted new political boundaries after the 2010 Census did so in a way that either packed Democratic voters into districts or diluted their numbers in other districts in such a way as to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court decision in the Maryland and North Carolina cases — where both parties complained of gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing district lines in such a way as to help one political party or another — effectively ensured that the Michigan decision would be vacated, however.
That decision split the court 5-4 as Roberts, along with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, found that no test has yet been proposed which is precise and politically neutral enough to indicate when "political gerrymandering has gone too far." Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen voted against.
Because of the decision, Michigan's political lines will remain in place at least until 2022, when a bipartisan commission created by a statewide referendum last year is expected to take over the process of drawing those boundaries.
Nancy Wang, executive director of the group Voters, Not Politicians, which helped pass the referendum last year, said the lawsuit, originally filed by the League of Women Voters, was not in vain.
"The public now knows what happens behind closed doors when politicians and special interests have the power to manipulate election district maps for partisan political gain," she said. "The U.S. Supreme Court’s unwillingness to protect voters from extreme partisan gerrymandering underscores the importance of citizen-led initiatives (to determine how political lines are drawn)."
Contact Todd Spangler: tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @tsspangler. Read more on Michigan politics and sign up for our elections newsletter.
Detroit Free Press
6:01 p.m. ET Oct. 21, 2019
Free Press editorial board members Mike Thompson and Brian Dickerson explain gerrymandering and how it affects elections.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially overturned a ruling which had called for nearly three dozen congressional and legislative districts in Michigan to be redrawn because they unfairly helped one political party.
The decision — which vacated an earlier ruling made by a three-judge panel by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati — had been widely expected since the Supreme Court decided in June that it would allow state courts to decide questions about political boundary lines rather than ruling on them itself.
"Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that decision involving cases brought regarding political boundary lines drawn in Maryland and North Carolina.
At the time of the decision, Republicans in Lansing had appealed an April ruling in the 6th Circuit which had ordered the governor and Legislature to redraw 34 districts — nine congressional, 10 state Senate and 15 state House districts — by Aug. 1 or it would do it for them.
The panel issued a 146-page opinion saying that Republicans who drew and enacted new political boundaries after the 2010 Census did so in a way that either packed Democratic voters into districts or diluted their numbers in other districts in such a way as to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court decision in the Maryland and North Carolina cases — where both parties complained of gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing district lines in such a way as to help one political party or another — effectively ensured that the Michigan decision would be vacated, however.
That decision split the court 5-4 as Roberts, along with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, found that no test has yet been proposed which is precise and politically neutral enough to indicate when "political gerrymandering has gone too far." Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen voted against.
Because of the decision, Michigan's political lines will remain in place at least until 2022, when a bipartisan commission created by a statewide referendum last year is expected to take over the process of drawing those boundaries.
Nancy Wang, executive director of the group Voters, Not Politicians, which helped pass the referendum last year, said the lawsuit, originally filed by the League of Women Voters, was not in vain.
"The public now knows what happens behind closed doors when politicians and special interests have the power to manipulate election district maps for partisan political gain," she said. "The U.S. Supreme Court’s unwillingness to protect voters from extreme partisan gerrymandering underscores the importance of citizen-led initiatives (to determine how political lines are drawn)."
Contact Todd Spangler: tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @tsspangler. Read more on Michigan politics and sign up for our elections newsletter.
No comments:
Post a Comment