WI gov confident districts will survive review

Senate Republicans work to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch to take the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The C

He added, though, that because of the time it will take for the Supreme Court to decide the case, "In 2018, we're very likely to be using the districts we have today", regardless of how the court rules.

In a statement released Monday, Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel said the state's redistricting was constitutional.

Wisconsin voter William Whitford is the lead plaintiff in the case against state elections commissioner Beverly Gill. Smith will argue the case before the Supreme Court.

The Campaign Legal Center brought a motion with the justices last month, asking them to affirmi a November decision by the Seventh Circuit. University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee devised one promising option, which notes that gerrymandering forces the losing party to "waste" votes by placing all its voters into a small number of districts where the party gets a landslide, rather than spreading out those voters so they can have more impact.

While courts have overturned legislative district maps based on racial discrimination, judges have shied away from striking down districts drawn to maximize a party's political power.

A federal court in Texas is set to hear arguments on the complaints of racial gerrymandering in the state in July.

Walker spokesman Tom Evenson says the Republican governor "is confident Wisconsin's redistricting process is constitutional and is pleased to see the Supreme Court take the case".

Legendary journalist Lyle Denniston is Constitution Daily's Supreme Court correspondent. If it does, it would have a revolutionary impact on the reapportionment that comes after the 2020 election, and could come at the expense of Republicans, who control the process in the majority of states.

The court's five conservative justices voted to stop the redistricting process.

Sachin Chheda (SAH'-chihn CHAY'-dah) is director of the Fair Elections Project, which organized and launched the lawsuit. We proved in federal court that Democrats and Republicans are pretty evenly clustered throughout the state and that Democrats in Wisconsin have had their rights violated.

The high court justices will hear later this year a challenge to the way Republican lawmakers drew Wisconsin's electoral districts.

"This will be the biggest and most important election law case in decades". According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the method, which was not wholly adopted by the lower court, "counts the number of votes each party wastes in an election to determine whether either party enjoyed a systematic advantage in turning votes into seats". The stay was opposed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, the court's four liberal-leaning justices.

The lower court found that redistricting efforts are unlawful partisan gerrymandering when they seek to entrench the party in power, and have no other legitimate justification.

This case revolves around redistricting - specifically, district lines in Wisconsin that challengers contend the Republicans unconstitutionally drew to favor themselves.

The case will be argued in the fall.

A decision to uphold the ruling, on the other hand, would send courts across the U.S. head-first into a legal thicket, where they would be asked to glean legislative intent in district-drawing and pore over electoral maps and data to discern evidence of imbalance. And "that work is proceeding". The Supreme Court has been split in the past on whether or not these primarily political decisions are best left to elected officials. Yet Democrats are more supportive of having courts rein in extreme districting plans, mainly because Republicans control more legislatures and drew districts after the 2010 census that enhanced their advantage in those states and in the House of Representatives. On Monday, it was clear that these Justices favored that action, although the order did not name them explicitly; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.



Otras noticias