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 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Judges Rule Michigan Congressional Districts Are Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered | |
| (about 1 hour 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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.” | “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.” | 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.” | 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. | 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. |
| In each of the contested districts, the judges wrote, the plaintiffs — the League of Women Voters, representing individual Michigan citizens — proved that the legislature had intended to silence Democratic voters, that the maps succeeded at that task, and that there was no other reasonable justification for the way the maps were drawn. | |
| The judges rejected the contention by lawyers for the legislature that the maps simply adhered to state standards that lawmakers were required to follow when drawing political boundaries — that districts have nearly the same population, for example, and that the mapmakers try not to split counties and cities. “The evidence points only to one conclusion: partisan considerations played a central role in every aspect of the redistricting process,” the judges wrote. | |
| In elections from 2012 through 2016, they noted, Michigan Republicans won nine of the state’s 14 House seats — 64 percent — despite failing to win more than 50.5 percent of the statewide vote in any of those years. And last year, when Democrats won nearly 56 percent of the vote and swept statewide offices, they still won only half the 14 House seats. | |
| The legislators’ case was undermined early on by a string of emails unearthed during discovery that laid bare both their intentions and the political animus behind them. The emails boasted of packing “Dem garbage” into four districts in southeastern Michigan, leaving adjacent districts with secure Republican majorities. And the messages joked over how a narrow extension of one Democratic congressman’s district was “giving the finger” to its incumbent. | |
| Another 2011 email noted that Republican Party experts, who earlier had mounted a nationwide campaign to capture state legislatures and control redistricting, had created a congressional map for Michigan that would increase the party’s share of seats in the state to 10 out of 14. But a state Republican strategist rejected that map, saying that “we need for legal and P.R. purposes a good-looking map” that did not “look like a gerrymander.” | |
| The judges appeared most swayed, however, by stacks of statistical evidence that the 34 House and legislative districts so profoundly benefited Republicans that there was no plausible explanation for their shapes beyond locking in a partisan advantage. | |
| In one instance, Jowei Chen of the University of Michigan, a political-science professor and expert witness for the plaintiffs, produced 1,000 simulated political maps drawn randomly according to the state’s standards, and compared them to the maps drawn by Republicans. | |
| “Not a single one of Dr. Chen’s simulated 1,000 plans created nine Republican congressional districts and five Democratic congressional districts,” the judges wrote. Nor did any of the 1,000 simulated maps drawn for State House and Senate districts give Republicans as many seats as they won in those chambers. | |
| Similarly, the Republican-drawn map for the Fifth Congressional District, where one plaintiff in the case lives, packed the district with more Democratic voters than would be found in that plaintiff’s district in any of Dr. Chen’s simulated maps. |