This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48789838
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court: Federal judges cannot block gerrymandering | Supreme Court: Federal judges cannot block gerrymandering |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| The US Supreme Court declined to set limits on gerrymandering - the practice where voting districts are re-drawn in order to favour political parties. | The US Supreme Court declined to set limits on gerrymandering - the practice where voting districts are re-drawn in order to favour political parties. |
| The 5-4 vote on Thursday saw justices divided along ideological lines, with the court's conservative majority penning the opinion. | The 5-4 vote on Thursday saw justices divided along ideological lines, with the court's conservative majority penning the opinion. |
| They ruled the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate state election maps. | They ruled the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate state election maps. |
| The decision could increase partisan redistricting after the 2020 census. | |
| By tossing gerrymandering back to Congress and the states, the Supreme Court may have emboldened regional lawmakers to carry out partisan mapping after the next census is complete, in a move some say will result in noncompetitive elections. | |
| The liberal justices condemned the majority ruling and said the practice of gerrymandering imperilled democracy. | |
| The Supreme Court examined two cases of partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland, where voters and other plaintiffs sued the states for district maps they claimed were unconstitutional. | The Supreme Court examined two cases of partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland, where voters and other plaintiffs sued the states for district maps they claimed were unconstitutional. |
| In North Carolina, the plaintiffs accused the state of discriminating against Democrats. In Maryland, plaintiffs claimed the maps discriminated against Republicans. | In North Carolina, the plaintiffs accused the state of discriminating against Democrats. In Maryland, plaintiffs claimed the maps discriminated against Republicans. |
| They argued the instances of gerrymandering violated the US Constitution, which says a state must govern impartially and protects individual rights. | |
| Plaintiffs in both cases won in lower courts, prompting the states to appeal to the Supreme Court. | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying that the top court could not rule on gerrymandering because there are no laws to direct it. | |
| "We have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority." | |
| Justice Roberts noted that the court "does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering". | |
| "Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts." | |
| He wrote that as there is no "fair districts amendment" in the constitution, only "provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply". |