SEVERE WX : Severe Thunderstorm Warning View Alerts

9-0 ruling masks deep division on gerrymandering at Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's rejection of Democrats' challenge to districts they say were rigged on a partisan basis by Wiscon...

Posted: Jun 19, 2018 9:44 AM
Updated: Jun 19, 2018 9:44 AM

The Supreme Court's rejection of Democrats' challenge to districts they say were rigged on a partisan basis by Wisconsin Republicans came on a 9-0 vote, but dueling opinions revealed internal conflicts and portend difficulty ahead for any future gerrymandering claim.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote Monday that the Democratic challengers lacked legal "standing" because they had not demonstrated individual harm within their legislative districts.

The court, therefore, sidestepped the salient question of whether federal judges may ever take up constitutional claims to the partisan gerrymanders proliferating across a polarized America, or determine how far politicians may or may not go in their quest to secure legislative majorities.

That was not the end of the matter for Justice Elena Kagan. Writing a concurring opinion for the four liberal justices, Kagan warned of the "evils of gerrymandering" to democracy and tried to offer a blueprint for future plaintiffs to prove injury on various constitutional grounds -- including a First Amendment right of free association.

But Roberts retorted that her opinion, essentially, does not matter. The court's ruling, he said, was set forth in his opinion "and none other." And while the court did not close the door on eventual review of partisan gerrymanders, it put out no welcome map. Roberts's opinion showed none of Kagan's concern for the way gerrymandering could rig elections, as the country heads to the 2020 Census and redistricting cycle.

The chief justice's concerns focused on when -- and perhaps subtly, whether -- judges should ever be involved in the map-drawing process. 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.

"This court is not responsible for vindicating generalized partisan preferences," Roberts wrote Monday. "The court's constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative centrist who has previously suggested the court could at some point rule on a partisan gerrymander, possibly based on a First Amendment right of free association, did not write a separate statement in the Monday case.

For her part, Kagan, joined by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said that if the court does not soon intervene, the problem would only get worse. Redistricting software enables whichever party controls a statehouse to capture every bit of partisan advantage, she wrote, helping entrench the party in power, irrespective of voters' true preferences.

The method at issue in the Wisconsin case was "packing and cracking," by which voters of one party are consolidated ("packed") into districts where they can prevail by a great majority but effectively waste votes, and are divided ("cracked") among multiple districts so they fail to gain a majority in any of those districts.

Roberts noted that the Wisconsin Democrats claimed their votes had been unconstitutionally diluted. But he said they did not make the case for individual harm within specific districts. Rather, much of the plaintiffs' evidence addressed the statewide partisan advantage arising from the packing and cracking. That, Roberts asserted, made the case "about group political interests, not individual legal rights."

As he sent the case back to a lower court in Wisconsin, Roberts said the plaintiffs must "prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence -- unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far -- that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes.

"We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs' case," he added. "We caution, however, that standing is not dispensed in gross: A plaintiff's remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff's particular injury."

Two of Roberts's fellow conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said they did not believe the challengers should have another chance to prove standing.

Kagan, alternatively, offered suggestions on how challengers could get their claim heard, including if it were a broad-based assertion of a First Amendment violation based on free association.

Referring to the claim directly before the court, she said, to demonstrate individual harm "a Democratic plaintiff living in a 75% Democratic district could prove she was packed by presenting a different map, drawn without a focus on a partisan advantage, that would place her in a 60% Democratic district. Or conversely, a Democratic plaintiff residing in a 35% Democratic district could prove she was cracked by offering an alternative, neutrally drawn map putting her in a 50-50 district.

"The precise numbers are of no import," Kagan wrote. "The point is that the plaintiff can show, through drawing alternative district lines, that partisan-based packing or cracking diluted her vote."

Kagan also addressed a legal route that Kennedy has previously suggested based on the First Amendment right of association held by political parties and their members.

"Consider an active member of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin who resides in a district that a partisan gerrymander has left untouched (neither packed nor cracked)," Kagan posited. "His individual vote carries no less weight than it did before. But if the gerrymander ravaged the party he works to support, then he indeed suffers harm, as do all other involved members of that party."

Contesting Roberts' narrower conception, she asserted, "When the harm alleged is not district specific, the proof needed for standing should not be district specific either. ... The complaint ... is that the gerrymander has burdened the ability of like-minded people across the state to affiliate in a political party and carry out that organization activities and objects."

West Lafayette
Broken Clouds
89° wxIcon
Hi: 89° Lo: 66°
Feels Like: 92°
Kokomo
Scattered Clouds
84° wxIcon
Hi: 85° Lo: 64°
Feels Like: 86°
Rensselaer
Overcast
70° wxIcon
Hi: 79° Lo: 63°
Feels Like: 70°
Fowler
Overcast
70° wxIcon
Hi: 84° Lo: 63°
Feels Like: 70°
Williamsport
Clear
88° wxIcon
Hi: 88° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 92°
Crawfordsville
Scattered Clouds
82° wxIcon
Hi: 85° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 85°
Frankfort
Broken Clouds
87° wxIcon
Hi: 86° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 89°
Delphi
Overcast
69° wxIcon
Hi: 88° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 69°
Monticello
Overcast
69° wxIcon
Hi: 82° Lo: 64°
Feels Like: 69°
Logansport
Broken Clouds
82° wxIcon
Hi: 83° Lo: 64°
Feels Like: 83°
WLFI Radar
WLFI Temps
WLFI Planner

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Confirmed Cases: 50300

Reported Deaths: 2748
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Marion11920692
Lake5432248
Elkhart347058
Allen2902133
St. Joseph205169
Hamilton1665101
Cass16449
Hendricks1446100
Johnson1325118
Porter80238
Tippecanoe7599
Clark68144
Vanderburgh6816
Madison67264
LaPorte60527
Howard59458
Bartholomew59345
Kosciusko5704
Marshall5308
Noble50128
LaGrange4829
Jackson4783
Boone47444
Delaware46952
Hancock46036
Shelby43525
Floyd40444
Morgan33631
Monroe32928
Grant30926
Dubois2976
Henry29717
Montgomery29720
Clinton2893
White26810
Decatur25532
Dearborn25423
Lawrence25225
Vigo2478
Warrick24329
Harrison21722
Greene19332
Miami1922
Jennings17912
Putnam1728
DeKalb1674
Scott1639
Wayne1536
Daviess15017
Perry1459
Orange13723
Steuben1362
Jasper1332
Franklin1278
Ripley1277
Wabash1152
Carroll1132
Gibson1132
Fayette1057
Whitley1045
Newton10010
Starke983
Huntington932
Randolph794
Wells791
Jefferson782
Fulton731
Jay680
Washington681
Knox670
Clay665
Pulaski661
Rush613
Posey550
Owen521
Benton510
Spencer501
Adams491
Sullivan471
Brown431
Blackford402
Fountain352
Crawford330
Tipton321
Switzerland300
Martin240
Parke230
Ohio220
Vermillion200
Warren151
Union130
Pike110
Unassigned0193

COVID-19 Important links and resources

As the spread of COVID-19, or as it's more commonly known as the coronavirus continues, this page will serve as your one-stop for the resources you need to stay informed and to keep you and your family safe. CLICK HERE

Closings related to the prevention of the COVID-19 can be found on our Closings page.

Community Events