Loading...

The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering. - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering., we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.
link : The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.

SCOTUSblog reports:

The lower court also ordered the state to create a new redistricting plan by the fall, but a deeply divided Supreme Court today put that order on hold. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which is likely to come next year, will almost certainly be a major one that could affect redistricting efforts for decades to come.

The Court has never found an instance of political gerrymandering to violate the Constitution and has never fixed the doctrinal test. In fact, it has come close to consigning the issue to the "political question" doctrine, making it one of those supposed problems of constitutional law that are left to other branches of government to take care of. From the last time the Court looked at the issue (2004), there are 2 Justices on the Court today who signed on to an opinion sketching out what the test should be (Ginsburg and Breyer), one Justice who thought it should be called a political question (Thomas), and one Justice who wouldn't say it was a political question or say what the test should be (Kennedy).

It's quite possible, that we'll end up with another mushy decision, stating no test but saying that the particular instance of redistricting doesn't violate whatever the test would be. That would just repeat the 2004 pattern, with Ginsburg and Breyer getting the voted of Kagan and Sotomayor to fix on a doctrinal test, Kennedy agreeing with them only to say that the question is justiciable (i.e., not within the "political question" doctrine), and Thomas still saying it's a political question and joined perhaps by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch (or those 3 could go along with Kennedy). That is, I expect the Wisconsin redistricting plan to be found constitutional and the question to remain justiciable and still not governed by a fixed test.

As SCOTUSblog notes, the Court has already decided that the state can use the new districting, and that was a decision that included as a factor a determination that the state is "likely to succeed on the merits." In other words, the state is likely to win.

But something interestingly new could happen in this case, which is called Gill v. Whitford. (Whitford is one of my long-time Wisconsin Law School colleagues.) As discussed previously on this blog:

This case introduced a new way to measure the equal protection problem in districting, the "efficiency gap" which looks for each party's "wasted votes":

Wasted votes, accrding [sic] to the efficiency gap’s creators, are the number of “lost” votes cast for losing candidates and “surplus” votes for victorious candidates in excess of what they needed to win.

This test helps Democrats overcome the problem of having its voters concentrated in relatively small geographic spaces — that is, cities. It would make an equal protection problem out of a pattern of human behavior. It's basically the same problem Democrats have with the Electoral College: Their voters aren't spread out enough geographically. This is a terrible problem for Democrats, but I can't believe the Supreme Court will inscribe their mathematical fix into constitutional law.

As I said when I wrote that in January of this year, "if Hillary Clinton had won the election and had the Supreme Court appointment to make, the new Democratic-Party-favoring test may very well have become the law."

SCOTUSblog reports:

The lower court also ordered the state to create a new redistricting plan by the fall, but a deeply divided Supreme Court today put that order on hold. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which is likely to come next year, will almost certainly be a major one that could affect redistricting efforts for decades to come.

The Court has never found an instance of political gerrymandering to violate the Constitution and has never fixed the doctrinal test. In fact, it has come close to consigning the issue to the "political question" doctrine, making it one of those supposed problems of constitutional law that are left to other branches of government to take care of. From the last time the Court looked at the issue (2004), there are 2 Justices on the Court today who signed on to an opinion sketching out what the test should be (Ginsburg and Breyer), one Justice who thought it should be called a political question (Thomas), and one Justice who wouldn't say it was a political question or say what the test should be (Kennedy).

It's quite possible, that we'll end up with another mushy decision, stating no test but saying that the particular instance of redistricting doesn't violate whatever the test would be. That would just repeat the 2004 pattern, with Ginsburg and Breyer getting the voted of Kagan and Sotomayor to fix on a doctrinal test, Kennedy agreeing with them only to say that the question is justiciable (i.e., not within the "political question" doctrine), and Thomas still saying it's a political question and joined perhaps by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch (or those 3 could go along with Kennedy). That is, I expect the Wisconsin redistricting plan to be found constitutional and the question to remain justiciable

Loading...

and still not governed by a fixed test.

As SCOTUSblog notes, the Court has already decided that the state can use the new districting, and that was a decision that included as a factor a determination that the state is "likely to succeed on the merits." In other words, the state is likely to win.

But something interestingly new could happen in this case, which is called Gill v. Whitford. (Whitford is one of my long-time Wisconsin Law School colleagues.) As discussed previously on this blog:

This case introduced a new way to measure the equal protection problem in districting, the "efficiency gap" which looks for each party's "wasted votes":

Wasted votes, accrding [sic] to the efficiency gap’s creators, are the number of “lost” votes cast for losing candidates and “surplus” votes for victorious candidates in excess of what they needed to win.

This test helps Democrats overcome the problem of having its voters concentrated in relatively small geographic spaces — that is, cities. It would make an equal protection problem out of a pattern of human behavior. It's basically the same problem Democrats have with the Electoral College: Their voters aren't spread out enough geographically. This is a terrible problem for Democrats, but I can't believe the Supreme Court will inscribe their mathematical fix into constitutional law.

As I said when I wrote that in January of this year, "if Hillary Clinton had won the election and had the Supreme Court appointment to make, the new Democratic-Party-favoring test may very well have become the law."

Thus articles The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.

that is all articles The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-supreme-court-announced-that-it.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: