This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/michigan-gerrymandering.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Judges Rule Michigan’s Congressional Districts Are Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered, Order Them Redrawn | Judges Rule Michigan’s Congressional Districts Are Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered, Order Them Redrawn |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| WASHINGTON — A panel of three federal judges ruled on Thursday that 34 congressional and state legislative districts in Michigan are extreme partisan gerrymanders and unconstitutional. The judges ordered state lawmakers to redraw maps in time for elections in 2020. | |
| The panel wrote that it was joining “the growing chorus of federal courts” that have held that drawing districts to unfairly favor the party in power is unconstitutional. The judges said the maps violated Democratic voters’ constitutional rights. | The panel wrote that it was joining “the growing chorus of federal courts” that have held that drawing districts to unfairly favor the party in power is unconstitutional. The judges said the maps violated Democratic voters’ constitutional rights. |
| But the impact of the ruling ultimately will turn on an opinion by the Supreme Court, which is weighing decisions in two other partisan gerrymander cases involving congressional districts in North Carolina and Maryland. The high court’s decision in those cases, expected by the end of June, could reinforce the Michigan ruling, force alterations to it, or even overrule it entirely. | |
| The 146-page Michigan opinion, joined by two judges named to the bench by President Clinton and one named by President George H.W. Bush, made a pointed and passionate argument to the justices for action to outlaw at least some partisan gerrymanders. | |
| During arguments in the Supreme Court cases last month, some justices questioned whether it was possible to draw a bright line between an acceptable political map and one that is too partisan, and others wondered aloud whether a growing public outcry against partisan maps might solve the problem without judicial intervention. | |
| But in the Michigan ruling, the three judges said emphatically that inaction was not an option. | |
| “Federal courts must not abdicate their responsibility to protect American voters from this unconstitutional and pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” they wrote, adding that failing to protect voters’ rights “will only increase the citizenry’s growing disenchantment with, and disillusionment in, our democracy.” | |
| In what seemed to be a direct message to the Supreme Court, they said that “judges — and justices — must act in accordance with their obligation to vindicate the constitutional rights of those harmed by partisan gerrymandering.” | |
| Michigan is frequently a battleground state in statewide and national elections, divided about evenly between the two major parties. The state’s Republican-dominated Legislature controlled redistricting after population data from the 2010 census became available. | Michigan is frequently a battleground state in statewide and national elections, divided about evenly between the two major parties. The state’s Republican-dominated Legislature controlled redistricting after population data from the 2010 census became available. |
| The Michigan opinion on Thursday invalidated the boundaries drawn by the state legislature in 2011 for nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts, as well as for 25 seats in the State House and State Senate. The judges said that the congressional maps and most of the state legislative maps in question violated the 14th Amendment’s broad guarantee of equal protection by creating “districts that were intentionally drawn to ensure a particular outcome in each district.” | |
| Perhaps more strikingly, the judges ruled that all 34 maps violated Democratic voters’ First Amendment right to freedom of association and effectively punished them for their political views by placing them in districts where their votes were worthless. Plaintiffs in the North Carolina gerrymander case made the same argument to the Supreme Court in March. |