"Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken on the landmark partisan gerrymandering case in Wisconsin, the highest court in America could establish clear constitutional limits on partisan map drawing that could have applicability to IL and other states", said Brad McMillan, the group's vice chair. Republican legislators took that ball and ran with it, employing an army of demographers to draw maps that would produce permanent Republican majorities.
In a statement issued later by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Elias, an NDRC adviser, called the case "the latest sign that the courts remain a strong check on extreme Republican gerrymandering".
Union leaders and district administrators negotiate annually to update the district's master teacher contract, though contract negotiations began later than usual this year, Reber said.
A ruling rejecting this standard will send a signal to politicians of all parties that there are virtually no limits to them drawing maps simply in an effort to stay in power. However, the Supreme Court has chose to take on the controversial issue starting in October. That same panel of judges then took issue with the Texas map of state house districts, which they said intentionally discriminated against minorities statewide and in particular districts, a month later. The case addresses the practice of so-called partisan gerrymandering, drawing legislative boundaries to favor one party over another.
Where did the term "gerrymandering" originate?
How does racial gerrymandering work? What was elusive, Kennedy said, was "a manageable standard by which to measure the effect of the apportionment and so to conclude that the state did impose a burden or restriction on the rights of a party's voters". The maps have been used in actual elections, and got the results that the mapmakers had intended.
On Nov. 21, 2016, Judge Kenneth Francis Ripple, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote the majority opinion for the panel which found that Wisconsin's State Assembly district map violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Scalise was close to death when he arrived at the hospital: doctor
Griner remained in the hospital in good condition after sustaining a gunshot wound to the ankle, according to a Friday update. The American Hospital Association defines "critical" condition as: "Vital signs are unstable and not within normal limits".
Which party now benefits the most from gerrymandering? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Republicans have not held any public hearings or negotiations, and that's the "most glaring departure from normal legislative procedure that I have ever seen".
The district court judges ruled the current maps favor Republican candidates to the point where twelve Democratic plaintiffs who filed a 2015 lawsuit are being deprived of their constitutional rights by having to cast "wasted ballots".
If the Supreme Court finds that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, the lines in dozens of states would likely need to be redrawn. However, he sided with the Court's conservatives in staying the lower court ruling, which might indicate a lack of sympathy with the plaintiffs and a willingness to let the map slide. The last time the court examined a partisan gerrymander case was in 2004, when the court could not agree on a way to test when political gerrymandering becomes an unconstitutional dilution of another's vote, as the Washington Post explained.
Legendary journalist Lyle Denniston is Constitution Daily's Supreme Court correspondent.
The case of Gill vs. Whitford is to be heard in the fall, and it could yield one of the most important rulings on political power in decades. That year Republicans won 60 of 99 State Assembly seats even while losing the statewide vote.
"Wisconsin's gerrymander was one of the most aggressive of the decade, locking in a large and implausibly stable majority for Republicans in what is otherwise a battleground state", said redistricting expert Thomas Wolf of the Brennan Center.
In two orders on Monday, the Justices agreed to hear - though not necessarily decide - a high-profile case from Wisconsin, and then nearly an hour later announced that it was blocking, by a 5-to-4 vote, a lower federal court ruling that had struck down the specific redistricting maps for the state's general assembly.
Comments