Redistricting allowed to stand
High court decides partisan gerrymandering not its business
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that partisan gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts is none of its business.
The court’s conservative majority, including the two justices appointed by President Donald Trump, prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that dealt a huge blow to efforts to combat the redrawing of district lines to benefit a particular party.
The decision, on the last day before the justices’ long summer break, has no effect on racial gerrymandering challenges. Courts have barred redistricting aimed at reducing the political representation of racial minorities for a half-century.
But the outcome brings an immediate halt to lawsuits that sought to rein in the most partisan districting plans that can result when one party controls a state’s legislature and governor’s office.
Republicans made dramatic political gains in the 2010 election just before the last round of redistricting, so they have controlled the process in many states. Democratic voters had persuaded lower courts to strike down districting plans in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a sweeping majority opinion in which he said voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute. Federal courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes, he wrote.
“We have never struck down a partisan gerrymander as unconstitutional — despite various requests over the past 45 years. The expansion of judicial authority would not be into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life,” Roberts wrote.
The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.
“Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering,” Roberts wrote, acknowledging that the North Carolina and Maryland maps are “highly partisan.”
In a dissent for the four liberals, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”
Also Thursday:
The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers can generally draw blood without a warrant from an unconscious person suspected of driving drunk or while on drugs.
The high court will hear arguments a second time in a case involving an Oklahoma man who argued that the state had no right to prosecute him because he is a Native American and the crime occurred on Indian land.