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 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court: Federal judges cannot block gerrymandering | Supreme Court: Federal judges cannot block gerrymandering |
| (about 3 hours 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. | 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. | 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 liberal justices condemned the majority ruling and said the practice of gerrymandering imperilled democracy. |
| Justice Elena Kagan asked in the dissent: "Is this how American democracy is supposed to work?" | Justice Elena Kagan asked in the dissent: "Is this how American democracy is supposed to work?" |
| What were the cases? | What were the cases? |
| 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 states must govern impartially and protects individual rights. | They argued the instances of gerrymandering violated the US Constitution, which says states must govern impartially and protects individual rights. |
| Plaintiffs in both cases won in lower courts, prompting the states to appeal to the Supreme Court. | Plaintiffs in both cases won in lower courts, prompting the states to appeal to the Supreme Court. |
| In the North Carolina case, one of the Republican co-chairs of the redistricting committee had admitted: "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country." | In the North Carolina case, one of the Republican co-chairs of the redistricting committee had admitted: "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country." |
| As the liberal justices pointed out in the dissent, these mapping efforts led to Republican candidates winning 10 of North Carolina's 13 seats while receiving 53% of the statewide vote in 2016, and nine out of 12 seats with 50% of the vote in 2018. | As the liberal justices pointed out in the dissent, these mapping efforts led to Republican candidates winning 10 of North Carolina's 13 seats while receiving 53% of the statewide vote in 2016, and nine out of 12 seats with 50% of the vote in 2018. |
| Similarly in Maryland, Governor Martin O'Malley said he decided "to create a map that was more favourable for Democrats over the next 10 years". | Similarly in Maryland, Governor Martin O'Malley said he decided "to create a map that was more favourable for Democrats over the next 10 years". |
| The mapping changes moved over 300,000 voters around districts to decrease the numbers of registered Republicans and increase the number of Democrats. | The mapping changes moved over 300,000 voters around districts to decrease the numbers of registered Republicans and increase the number of Democrats. |
| Maryland Democrats have won seven out of eight congressional seats despite never having more than 65% of the statewide vote. | Maryland Democrats have won seven out of eight congressional seats despite never having more than 65% of the statewide vote. |
| What was the ruling? | What was the ruling? |
| 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. | 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." | "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". | 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." | "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". | 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". |
| Partisanship gets a green light | Partisanship gets a green light |
| The Supreme Court has been dancing around the issue of partisan gerrymandering - political parties drawing legislative district lines to secure the most seats - for decades. Justices at times appeared to be searching for a clean way to define when such efforts endanger the democratic process. | The Supreme Court has been dancing around the issue of partisan gerrymandering - political parties drawing legislative district lines to secure the most seats - for decades. Justices at times appeared to be searching for a clean way to define when such efforts endanger the democratic process. |
| Now, with a newly reinforced conservative majority due to two Donald Trump appointments, the court slammed the door shut on this discussion - at least at a federal level. None of the proposed "tests" for determining what shouldn't be allowed worked, a bare majority of the justices held, and instituting any of them would open the courts up to an endless stream of lawsuits. | Now, with a newly reinforced conservative majority due to two Donald Trump appointments, the court slammed the door shut on this discussion - at least at a federal level. None of the proposed "tests" for determining what shouldn't be allowed worked, a bare majority of the justices held, and instituting any of them would open the courts up to an endless stream of lawsuits. |
| Because of advances in data science, gerrymandering has become a process conducted with near statistical certainty. Disfavoured voters are spread out between districts or packed into a handful of constituencies, weakening their overall power. It has become common to see a party win or lose seats far out of proportion with the total number of votes they receive statewide. | Because of advances in data science, gerrymandering has become a process conducted with near statistical certainty. Disfavoured voters are spread out between districts or packed into a handful of constituencies, weakening their overall power. It has become common to see a party win or lose seats far out of proportion with the total number of votes they receive statewide. |
| Now the court has given a green light for these practices to continue. While some challenges may continue by citing state constitutions, the legal debate on the national level is over for now. | Now the court has given a green light for these practices to continue. While some challenges may continue by citing state constitutions, the legal debate on the national level is over for now. |
| What did the dissent say? | What did the dissent say? |
| Justice Kagan wrote the dissent on behalf of the court's liberals - Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. | Justice Kagan wrote the dissent on behalf of the court's liberals - Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. |
| She said gerrymandering "debased and dishonoured our democracy" by promoting "partisanship above respect for the popular will". | She said gerrymandering "debased and dishonoured our democracy" by promoting "partisanship above respect for the popular will". |
| "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. | "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. |
| "The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. | "The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. |
| Justice Kagan argued it was not beyond the Supreme Court to regulate the practice, as it can make the system of democracy "meaningless", and the Court has a duty to "defend its foundations". | Justice Kagan argued it was not beyond the Supreme Court to regulate the practice, as it can make the system of democracy "meaningless", and the Court has a duty to "defend its foundations". |
| What's the reaction? | |
| Some Republicans have spoken out in favour of the ruling, calling it a win for voters. | |
| North Carolina Congressman Mark Walker said it was "a rebuke of the activist judges" - a view echoed by other Republican lawmakers in his state, who lauded their mapping efforts as fair. | |
| Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House of Representatives Oversight Committee, also praised the decision. | |
| Republicans currently control the majority of state legislatures, and thus have control over more districts than Democrats. | |
| Others voiced their concerns over the pass given to such a partisan process. | |
| American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Voting Rights Project attorney Alora Thomas-Lundborg said: "The bottom line is voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around." | |
| In Maryland, some Democrats who have benefitted from gerrymandering offered a more nuanced opinion. | |
| Congressman David Trone, a Democrat in a district historically held by Republicans, told WMAR News there needed to be "a national standard to end partisan gerrymandering". |