Busy day for justices
Justices will weigh in on politics, partisan gerrymandering
The Supreme Court on Monday: ruled that social networking websites have become such an important source of information that even sex offenders should not be barred from social media; agreed to hear a potential landmark case that addresses how far lawmakers can go in choosing their voters, rather than the other way around; ruled Bush administration officials should not be held personally liable for the detention and harsh treatment of illegal immigrants in the calamitous days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks;
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a potential landmark case that addresses how far lawmakers can go in choosing their voters, rather than the other way around.
Venturing into what one justice recently called the “always unsavory” process of drawing election districts for partisan advantage, the court will try to set a standard — something it has failed to do in the past.
The case under review comes from Wisconsin, but about onethird of the maps drawn for Congress and state legislatures could be affected by the justices’ ruling. Similar cases are pending in North Carolina and Maryland.
The issue reaches the high court as Republicans and Democrats have improved the art of drawing congressional and legislative maps to entrench themselves in office for a decade at a time. Computer software increasingly helps them create safe districts for their most conservative and liberal candidates, whose success invariably leads to more partisan gridlock in government.
“Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory,” said Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center, who will argue the case in the fall.
“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure the maps in Wisconsin are drawn fairly, and further, has the opportunity to create ground rules that safe- guard every citizen’s right to freely choose their representatives.”
The court recently struck down some congressional and state legislative districts in North Carolina because they used voters’ racial composition to maximize Republicans’ political advantage. The court ruled similarly on Virginia and Alabama racial redistricting plans.
The Wisconsin case will confront the high court with raw politics, not race. The state is one of several battlegrounds where Republicans and Democrats fought to a virtual draw in last year’s presidential election but where Republicans enjoy election districts that have given them a nearly 2-to-1 advantage in the state Assembly.
The situation is similar in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, where lines drawn by Republicans have given the GOP most of the seats in Congress and state legislatures. North Carolina’s congressional delegation tilts 10-3 Republican. Michigan’s state Senate has 27 Republicans, 11 Democrats. In Virginia, Republicans have 66 of 100 seats in the House of Delegates.
Democrats do likewise where they control the line-drawing process, such as in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts. They have all the levers of power in six states; Republicans control 25 states, with 197 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.
As a result, congressional lines have become ever more partisan. In 2012, Republicans won 53% of the vote but 72% of House seats in states where they drew the lines. Democrats won 56% of the vote but 71% of the seats where they controlled the process.
A federal district court in Wisconsin ruled 2-1 in November that election districts drawn by Republicans discriminated against Democratic voters “by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats.”
The state asked the Supreme Court to block that requirement on the assumption that the justices would hear its appeal in the 2017 term, which begins in October. Monday, the court ruled narrowly, 5-4, that the state does not have to redraw its maps until the case is decided. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.
In three landmark cases from 1962, 1986 and 2004, the high court retained a role for itself to review partisan gerrymandering.