Wisconsin gerrymandering case heads to United States supreme court

And Sachin Chedda of the Fair Elections Project, which fought the state’s maps in court, says he’s confident the high court will affirm the lower court ruling.Justice Department steps in: The Trump administration is inserting itself into Texas’ legal battle over sanctuary cities, with the U.S. Department of Justice asking to be involved in two court hearings next week-just as Austin seeks an injunction to block the state bill outlawing sanctuaries.In this case, what the plaintiffs have effectively asked the Court to do is gerrymander in favor of competitiveness, that is, to draw maps that compensate for the fact that Democrat voters tend to be more geographically concentrated.Heck says the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that this kind of partisan map drawing is constitutional.In 2010, Republicans gained control of the state’s government. It said the constitution has been violated if the new districts are “intended to to place a severe impediment on the effectiveness of the votes of individual citizens on the basis of their political affiliation”, “has that effect” and “cannot be justified on other, legitimate legislative grounds”. “I didn’t write the plan”, he said.Previous year a district court ordered Wisconsin to produce a new, less partisan map in time for the 2018 election.The Washington-based Campaign Legal Center, whose attorneys are serving as co-counsel representing 12 Wisconsin voters, praised the court’s decision to hear the case. However, Democratic candidates won a majority of the votes cast statewide for Assembly.With advances in computer technology and data collection, parties have been able to make very specific, house-by-house predictions of how people will vote and how lines can be drawn to maximize partisan advantage. The ruling was the first time in over three decades that a federal court invalidated a redistricting plan for partisan bias.The Supreme Court hasn’t considered the legality of partisan gerrymandering since 2004, when the justices failed to come to a clear conclusion about whether it was legal and what limits could be put on it. The court’s more conservative justices will likely remain unpersuaded that partisan gerrymandering claims are a proper subject of judicial review. Moreover, because of a quirk of federal law, the case is overwhelmingly likely to wind up in the Supreme Court. “We drew the lines according to the Voter Registration Act to increase minority representation and the court switched rules on us”. The Court’s order provides that “further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits”, suggesting that numerous Court’s members think that federal courts do not have the power to hear gerrymandering cases.