Justices: No definitive ruling on partisan districts

Justices: No definitive ruling on partisan districts

"Courts have a critical role to play in curbing partisan gerrymandering", Kagan wrote.

Both said they would have their teams look at the proposals of Take Back Our Republic to find a solution to avoid the dilemma the Supreme Court just avoided of being impaled by either the right horn of partisan districts drawn by the Wisconsin legislature or the left horn of the liberal national groups who would like to carve up Milwaukee to create more Democratic districts. At oral arguments last fall, Roberts said that if judges began reviewing politically lopsided maps, siding with either Democrats or Republicans, their actions would be viewed as simply favoring one party over another.

In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court said the plaintiffs in the case didn't have enough standing to challenge the statewide assembly maps. Kagan said voters and political parties might still be able to show that a map violated their First Amendment right to associate with like-minded people. Political reformers bear a striking resemblance to the humiliated Charlie Brown in their dogged efforts to persuade the Supreme Court that extreme partisan redistricting is inimical to American democracy and a legitimate subject of judicial review and remediation.

In throwing the case back to the lower courts, the high court sidestepped the larger issue: endorsing a workable standard going forward that would apply nationwide. The Maryland case has not gone to trial at the lower level.

The cases differed in a couple of ways: First, the Maryland challengers objected to only one district's design, while the Wisconsin challengers object to the whole state's redistricting.

Plaintiffs in North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan and Maryland are also seeking to strike down congressional districts, arguing that they're the product of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.

The Court declined to decide the Democrat plaintiffs' argument that they have suffered individually because the gerrymandered maps impact their "collective representation".

People lined up, in October 2017, outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington to hear arguments in a case about political maps in Wisconsin that could affect elections across the country.

She called partisan gerrymandering "incompatible with democratic principles".

"These technicalities have nothing to do with our case". "We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs" case.

Johnson leads Hoffman at US Open, Woods misses cut
Finau and Berger were both four-under and are tied for the lead, while Aphibarnrat shot a two-under 68 and is three shots back. That's a sharp contrast from past year at Erin Hills, where 44 players broke par in the opening round to set a U.S.

"There is little to no moral hazard when it comes to gerrymandering", McDonald said. There's also a redistricting case out of North Carolina that could offer the justices the opportunity to make a firmer ruling, although it's not clear if that case will be decided before November.

The Democrats targeted longtime Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who had been reelected in 2010 by a 28-percentage-point margin, but lost to a Democrat in the redrawn district in 2012 by 21 points.

Critics of gerrymandering have said it has become ever more extreme through the use of precise voter data and computerized modeling to devise electoral maps. We will fight it in the courts, we will fight it in the statehouses, we will fight it at the ballot boxes, and we will win.

Third, the voters themselves can still take legislative line-drawing away from entrenched politicians.

Democrats had won a challenge in a lower court, but the Supreme Court's decision Monday would limit who can bring such cases in the future.

Visitors line up outside the U.S. Supreme Court plaza before the court handed down decisions June 18, 2018 in Washington, DC. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have dismissed the case outright. The process can create problems with voter representation. Following the recent success in Pennsylvania, state constitutions and statutes might be used when the federal judiciary fails to act.

In two cases, one in Maryland and one in Wisconsin, the court on Monday found procedural reasons not to issue a ruling on gerrymandering.

Foes of gerrymandering - who had hoped that the Justices would use the cases to weigh in on how congressional districts should be constituted - were disappointed with the rulings. If they want to return to the controversy next term, they already have awaiting them on their docket a case from North Carolina that some analysts say raises a more compelling challenge to a partisan map, and they could grant review of that.

"Obama and Holder and their liberal allies have raised millions of dollars to present the Supreme Court a case with no legal standing, and will continue to raise millions of dollars to tie up our courts to try to rig the system for Democrats and risk politicizing our judicial system".