Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

What is gerrymandering and why is it problematic?

Washington Post logoIt’s a complicated topic, but we’ve got a simple visual aid

Note: This is an update to a story that was originally published in 2015.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal courts have no rule to play in adjudicating questions of partisan gerrymandering, essentially letting individual states decide how best to deal with the question.

In most states, the drawing of congressional and legislative districts is handled by state legislatures. That creates a strong incentive for partisan lawmakers to draw districts in a way that benefits their own party. Here’s how it works. Continue reading “What is gerrymandering and why is it problematic?”

Supreme Court rules against Trump on census citizenship question

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.

The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question’s addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Those challenging the question said that asking about citizenship would cause non-citizens or immigrants to skip the question. The Trump administration has maintained in court filings that the data would not be accessible to other parts of the federal government, like immigration officials, but opponents argued that the implied perception surrounding asking about citizenship is enough to cause minority groups to not answer the question, or skip out on the census altogether.

View the complete June 27 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

Supreme Court allows states to draw partisan political maps

Ruling will affect how congressional districts are redrawn after 2020 census

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage, a decision that will influence the redrawing of congressional districts after the 2020 census.

In a 5-4 opinion, the court’s conservative wing found the Constitution did not give the courts the authority to strike down maps as partisan gerrymanders. Instead, the majority wrote, that is a political question and a task for Congress and the states.

The ruling pointed to legislative efforts, including a bill from House Democrats that would require independent commissions to oversee redistricting in each state, as well as the handful of states where voters did the same through ballot initiatives.

View the complete June 27 article by Todd Ruger on The Roll Call website here.

Supreme Court Ruling Fails to End Gerrymandering

House DFL logoRep. Klevorn Proposes People-focused, People-Driven Redistricting Reforms

SAINT PAUL — Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in two landmark redistricting cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. In a 72-page decision written by Justice Roberts, the majority concluded it could not set a constitutional standard against partisan gerrymandering.

Justice Kagan highlighted in her dissent, “The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”

Representative Ginny Klevorn (DFL-Plymouth) chief authored legislation during the 2019 session that would establish a nonpartisan Redistricting Advisory Commission comprised of 12 members of the public and five retired judges. Representative Klevorn released the following statement:

“Minnesotans deserve an honest election process, one that allows the people an opportunity to fairly elect their local elected officials. I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Kagan’s dissent. Although the Court came to this decision today, the Minnesota Legislature can set clear standards that put people before partisan or special interests. I’ll continue to work on people-focused and people-driven redistricting reforms putting all Minnesotans ahead of party, incumbency, and special interests.”

Legal expert argues that the DOJ just asked the Supreme Court to essentially become a ‘branch of the Trump administration’

AlterNet logoWith the fate of the nation’s electoral maps — and thus the very basis of democracy — hanging in the balance, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on the controversial Census case. But at the last minute, Justice Department Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote new a new plea to the justices asking them to take an even more extraordinary step than simply ruling on the issue before them.

Indeed, law professor Richard Hasen wrote in Slate on Tuesday that if the court goes along with Francisco’s request, it will essentially act as a part of the Trump administration.

The controversy arose when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census, which experts believe will reduce compliance with the survey in ways that benefit Republicans and white people electorally. The Justice Department claimed that it had asked Ross to include the question to protect the Voting Rights Act, but critics argued that this was a mere pretext and that the real purpose was to distort the Census results.

View the complete June 25 article by Cody Fenwick on the AlterNet website here.

EXCLUSIVE — Trump: I would fill Supreme Court vacancy before 2020 election

The Hill logoPresident Trump on Monday said he would make a nomination to the Supreme Court if there’s a vacancy before the 2020 presidential election.

“Would I do that? Of course,” Trump said in an exclusive interview with The Hill when asked if he would try to fill a high court vacancy during election season.

The position is an apparent reversal for the president, who as a candidate in 2016 backed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) decision to block former President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the high court.

View the complete June 24 article by Jordan Fabian and Saagar Enjeti on The Hill website here.

Supreme Court set to deliver ruling on census citizenship question

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court is set to hand down its much-anticipated decision on whether the Trump administration can include a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The question has been the subject of multiple legal challenges since it was announced in early 2018. And a courtroom twist this past week added a new level of drama that could affect the Census Bureau’s timeline for finalizing and printing the decennial questionnaire.

Opponents of the citizenship question cite studies that indicate it might lead to an inaccurate population count, which would impact the data used to determine congressional representation and the allocation of federal funds to states.

View the complete June 23 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

‘He’s got the deck stacked’: Former Trump associate explains why the president believes Barr and Kavanaugh will help him win every Court case

President Donald Trump is relying on familiar tactics to battle a slew of investigations into his administration, his campaign and his family’s business — but now he has reason to believe he’s successfully stacked the deck in his favor.

The 72-year-old Trump has sued or been sued at least 4,000 times, and he’s relying on tactics he learned from his longtime fixer Roy Cohn to block or stall investigations of his finances, and these lawsuits are testing the limits of the constitutional separation of powers, reported Politico.

“He sues,” said Barbara Res, a former Trump Organization executive vice president. “That’s his M.O. He sues.”

View the complete June 3 article by Travis Gettys from Raw Story on the AlterNet website here.

‘A gross misuse of historical facts’: Scholars tear apart conservative Justice Thomas’s latest anti-abortion screed

In that latest sign that at least that the Supreme Court conservative is eager to start tearing down abortion rights, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a decision this week trying to link the pro-choice movement to eugenics.

He drafted a concurrence in the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, where the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s fetal remains disposal law and declined to review the state’s law banning abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability, which the Seventh Circuit had struck down. In the opinion, he argued that there was a strong historical connection between abortion and the eugenics movement. To support this claim, he cited Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her defense of eugenic aims.

But scholars are rounding rejecting Thomas’s historical claims and legal arguments.

View the complete May 31 article by Cody Fenwick on the AlterNet website here.

Justice Thomas launches an utterly bizarre attack on birth control

Blessed be the fruit.

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would not hear a case seeking to reinstate a trolly anti-abortion law targeting sex, race, and disability-selective abortions signed by former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R).

Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t disagree with the decision not to take up this issue, but he did see it as the perfect opportunity to publish a 20-page rant claiming that the “use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical.”

Such a response is not surprising — Justice Thomas’ has not hid his disdain for Roe v. Wade in his past opinions. What is surprising, however, is that Thomas devotes much of his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood to an extended attack on early supporters of birth control. The implication is that contraception, and not just abortion, may need to be banned in order to prevent some kind of racial eugenics.

View the complete May 28 article by Ian Millhiser on the ThinkProgress website here.