Published: Sat, June 29, 2019
Global News | By Blake Casey

Supreme Court Reverses Outcome On Gerrymandering Decision

Supreme Court Reverses Outcome On Gerrymandering Decision

Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said his group will continue to pursue racial gerrymandering claims in federal courts and partisan gerrymandering claims in state courts. Steny Hoyer of Southern Maryland, for criticism for their role in the state's gerrymandering.

ALSO: The Supreme Court said it wanted more information before deciding whether the Trump administration could add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. "And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale-the sole stated reason-seems to have been contrived".

It could shift legal challenges against partisan gerrymandering to state courts and prompt more efforts to reform redistricting procedures through amendments to state constitutions.

Before the close of the 2019 Supreme Court session, the court is on the eve of two of its most consequential decisions that will resonate across the country.

If Republicans maintain complete control of the Legislature, Evers would be able to block any new boundaries the GOP draws in 2021.

Facilitating the practice is the fact that in most states voters are encouraged to register as "Democrat", "Republican" or "independent", designations that enable them to take part in their party's primaries.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.

"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.

Gerrymandering was not destiny; and, even without the justices' involvement, it is not being allowed unchecked by other institutions of government, especially those at the state level.

Wisconsin the court decided that police have a right to draw blood from an unconscious DUI suspect under that state's implied consent law.

Minutes after the Supreme Court ruled June 27 in Department of Commerce v.

The Justices had before them two cases of egregious district drawing - one from Republicans in North Carolina and one from Democrats in Maryland.

Spider-Man swings over Hollywood for incredible 'Far From Home' premiere
Spider-Man Far From Home has, so far, been well received by those lucky enough to attend pre-release screenings. How's the acting this time around? He's the flawless balance of innocent and naive, yet somehow commanding.


In a supplemental twist, deceased Republican lobbyist, Thomas Hofeller, the mastermind of gerrymandering, had already redrawn the North Carolina map in anticipation of an unfavorable court ruling.

"Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, can not ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020", he wrote. "The Supreme Court's decision will give the Department of Commerce an additional opportunity to justify its decision, meaning that this fight is far from over".

Whether the citizenship question returns to the courts or not, several scholars noted the significance of the Supreme Court's pointed rebuke of the Trump administration.

"We can not ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given", Roberts wrote.

"There absolutely are lots of question marks", she said of the court's new composition. "We need to focus on state politics big time".

The government relies on census data to inform health care decisions, transportation, infrastructure, social programs, and to reallocate seats in the U.S. House of Representatives Roberts' opinion, which was joined by the court's four liberal members, appeared to align with critics who have long argued the citizenship question - an addition pursued by Ross for close to a year -was politically motivated.

Roberts wrote in his opinion that "the decision to reinstate a citizenship question can not be adequately explained in terms of the (Justice Department's) request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the (Voting Rights Act)".

The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates for populations who could be affected by a citizenship question on the 2020 census are declaring the Supreme Court's decision a win.

The Census Bureau's own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen. "It is clear that a politicized judiciary is trying to take from this president powers which have been historically and routinely dedicated to the executive branch".

A number of states - including NY - and immigration groups questioned the legality of the citizenship question and accused Republicans of using it to hamper the participation of illegal immigrants in an effort to undercount minorities.

Hai Do adapted this story for Learning English based on an Associated Press report.

Write to us in the Comments Section or on our Facebook page.

Like this: