•   
  •   
  •   

USPartisan gerrymandering: Supreme Court discusses behind closed doors

18:30  07 december  2018
18:30  07 december  2018 Source:   cnn.com

Comey challenges House GOP subpoena in federal court

Comey challenges House GOP subpoena in federal court Former FBI James Comey is challenging a subpoena from House Republicans for his closed-door testimony in federal court. Court records show that Comey filed a motion in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to quash a subpoena from the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees for his testimony on Dec. 3. Comey has previously said that he would welcome testifying in public but would fight the subpoena for a closed-door appearance. "Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans. I'm still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions," Comey tweeted on Thanksgiving Day.

A lower court denied a partisan gerrymander claim, but left the door open to future claims if plaintiffs did propose a standard. Supreme Court justices discussed the pending case behind closed doors last week. Marc E. Elias, who served as the general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declined on Monday to address the central questions in two closely watched challenges to partisan gerrymandering , putting off for another time a ruling on the constitutionality of voting districts designed by legislatures to amplify one party’s political power.

Partisan gerrymandering: Supreme Court discusses behind closed doors© MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on November 30, 2018. - Standing from left: Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.Seated from left to right, bottom row: Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court is scheduled to return to a deeply divisive issue on Friday when the justices meet behind closed doors to discuss an issue left unresolved last term: when do states go too far in drawing district lines for partisan gain?

Both Trump And John Roberts Are Wrong About Politicized Judges

Both Trump And John Roberts Are Wrong About Politicized Judges In the feud between President Trump and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, both are wrong. Judges aren’t partisan hacks, but they do have different approaches to jurisprudence.

THE ISSUE: The United States Supreme Court is considering two partisan gerrymandering cases this session from Wisconsin and Maryland. The Court ’s decision in Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone in June could have important consequences for the political make up of our federal and state

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering , allowing controversial district maps to stand and be used in this fall's midterm elections.

The court has never established a standard to resolve extreme partisan gerrymanders, and if it chooses to do so, it could revolutionize the way congressional and state legislative maps are drawn.

The issue often divides conservatives, who have suggested that courts should steer clear of such political disputes, and liberals, like Justice Elena Kagan, who contend that courts should be able to articulate a standard to combat a practice she believes "enables politicians to entrench themselves in power against the people's will."

Last term, the justices heard a case out of Wisconsin called Gill v. Whitford and critics of partisan gerrymandering hoped that a divided court -- led by Justice Anthony Kennedy -- might issue a sweeping ruling. Instead, the court dodged key issues and sent the case back down to the lower courts to take another look at a threshold issue.

Supreme Court delays arguments for Bush national day of mourning

Supreme Court delays arguments for Bush national day of mourning The Supreme Court is delaying its Wednesday arguments in order to observe the national day of mourning planned for former President George H.W. Bush. The high court was scheduled to hear oral arguments for Gamble v. United States, a case about the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, on Wednesday. The justices will now hear the arguments the following day, according to the Supreme Court announcement. The late former president's funeral will take place on Wednesday at 11 a.m. at Washington National Cathedral. He is set to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda from Monday through Wednesday morning.

Even if the Supreme Court finally imposes limits on partisan gerrymandering this term, citizens could seem to win while democracy still loses. It is mindboggling, but unlike racial gerrymandering partisan gerrymandering is de facto legal today, because it is not specifically outlawed.

On Wednesday, the court took on partisan gerrymandering for the second time this term in oral arguments for Benisek v. Lamone. If they’d settled on an answer behind the scenes, they could’ve used arguments in Benisek to help refine their nascent gerrymandering jurisprudence.

Writing for a 9-0 court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the Democratic plaintiffs challenging Republican-drawn maps had not done enough to establish "concrete and particularized injuries" necessary to bring the case. Although the opinion was unanimous, it sidestepped the merits of the case and masked deep divisions on the court. Kagan, writing for the liberals on the bench, agreed the case should be sent back, but in a concurring opinion offered a roadmap for future challenges.

"Courts -- and in particular this court -- will again be called on to redress extreme partisan gerrymanders," Kagan wrote. "I am hopeful we will then step up to our responsibility to vindicate the Constitution against a contrary law," she said.

Impact of Kennedy retirement

One very important thing happened after Kagan wrote the opinion. Kennedy retired.

Unlike his conservative colleagues, Kennedy believed a standard was possible, although he never found one he liked.

Rodgers discusses McCarthy firing, moving forward

Rodgers discusses McCarthy firing, moving forward Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers opened up on the team’s decision to fire longtime coach.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a gerrymandering case that could have sweeping political consequences. Demonstrators protest outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the court hears arguments about partisan gerrymandering .

The Supreme Court is considering a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin. Both parties have engaged in partisan gerrymandering , but these days, Republicans have an advantage following a wave of victories in state legislatures that allowed lawmakers to draw election maps favoring their party.

After he retired, some critics of partisan gerrymanders lamented that they might have lost their best hope at a judicial solution to the problem.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, notes that Brett Kavanaugh, Kennedy's replacement, has not ruled on the issue as a judge.

"But his overall judicial philosophy suggests he's likely to join with other conservatives and hold that courts have no business policing the political drawing of lines under the U.S. Constitution," Hasen said.

North Carolina districts

Friday's case, Rucho v. Common Cause, is brought by voting rights groups and voters who filed a lawsuit arguing that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district maps drawn by Republican legislators amount to an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that intentionally diluted the electoral strength of individuals who oppose Republicans.

They also say the maps illegally punished supporters of non-Republican candidates on the basis of their political beliefs in violation of the First Amendment.

U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds

U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds

Two cases offer very different solutions to a perennial problem of politicians attempting to cement themselves in power.

The Supreme Court justices seemed to grasp the problem of gerrymandering in oral arguments on Wednesday and that it will only get worse, as computer-assisted redistricting gets even more refined. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering is illegal, but has recognized that a degree

In August, a three-judge district court panel issued a 321-page opinion and held that the North Carolina voters had the legal right to bring claims and that the plan violated the Constitution.

The court said that the state General Assembly "deprived Democratic voters of their 'natural political strength' by making it difficult for such voters to raise money, attract strong candidates and motivate fellow party members and independent voters to campaign and vote."

Paul Clement, a lawyer for North Carolina's Senate Redistricting Committee argues in briefs before the Supreme Court that the lower court was wrong when it identified a test to strike down the map as unconstitutional. Courts cannot create workable tests for "separating excessive partisan gerrymandering from the run-of-the-mill consideration of partisan advantage by legislatures organized along party lines," Clement argues.

"As decades of fruitless efforts have proven, trying to identify 'judicially discernible and manageagble standards' for adjudicating generalized political grievances is an exercise in futility," he wrote.

But the challengers told the justices a different story.

They pointed to what occurred in North Carolina in the 2016 election and said that Republican candidates won 10 out of 13 seats, even though the statewide vote was nearly tied.

North Carolina state Rep. David Lewis, the co-chair of the Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, convened a meeting in 2016 and said, "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats."

"When politicians feel brazen enough to not just admit but to openly declare that they are drawing political lines to rig the elections and punish certain voters, we need the Supreme Court to step in and say enough is enough," said Kathay Feng, a lawyer representing the challenges from Common Cause.

The justices could announce its action on the case as soon as Friday afternoon.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Ribs Are 'Almost Repaired'.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said that her health is "fine, thank you."

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

This is interesting!