Also inside:
Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering
In a potentially landmark case, Supreme Court to decide if partisan gerrymandering can be used to create favorable voting districts,
WASHINGTON — The SupremeCourt declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, potentially setting the stage for a ruling thatcould for the first time impose limits on a practice that has helped define American politics since the early days of theRepublic.
The high court’s decision came on a particularly busy day for the justices, in which theyalso struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarks, ruling in favor of an Asian-American rock band called the Slants and giving a major boost to the Washington Redskins in their separate legal fight over the team name. At the same time, the court handed Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted a victory as it refused to hear an appeal of a decision upholding the state’s right to reject some ballots due to minor errors made bywould-be voters.
The justices regularly are called to invalidate state electoral maps that have been illegally drawn to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes.
But the Supreme Court has long been tolerant of partisan gerrymandering — and some justices have thought that the court shouldn’t even be involved. A finding otherwise would have a revolutionary impact on the reapportionment that will take place after the 2020 election and could come at the expense of Republicans, who control the process in the majority of states.
The court accepted Gill v. Whitford, a case from Wisconsin, where a divided panel of three federal judges last year ruled that the state’s Republican leadership in 2011 pushed through a redistricting plan so partisan that it violated the Constitution’s First Amendment and equal rights protections.
The issue will be briefed and argued during the Supreme Court term that begins in October.
Paul Smith, a lawyer for the voters who challenged the map, said it was time for the Supreme Court to act.
“Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory,”Mr. Smith said.
The justices gave themselves a bit of an out, saying they will further consider their jurisdiction over the case when it is heard on its merits. And the justices gave an indication of how divisive the issue might be. After granting the case, the court voted 5-4 to stay the lower court’s decision, which had required that new state legislative districts be drawn this fall.
Meanwhile, the justices were unanimous in saying that a 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights guaranteed in the Constitution’ s First Amendment.
“It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court.
At the same time, they left in place a lower court ruling that had blocked Ohio rules requiring precise completion of the ballots, but upheld other changes that reduced the time voters could cure errors and prohibited poll worker assistance.
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that that several-high-ranking Bush administration officials may not be sued for policies adopted after 9/11; struck down a North Carolina law Monday that bars convicted sex offenders from popular social media sites; and said hundreds of out-state-residents can’t sue Bristol-Myers-Squibb Co.