Supreme Court Hands Down Decisions on Gerrymandering, Citizenship Question

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decisions On 2020 Census, Gerrymandering Cases

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down multiple decisions today that could affect the political landscape for the next ten years. a controversial question being added to the 2020 census and whether political partisanship affected how congressional districts were drawn in Maryland and North Carolina.

Citizenship Question: Rucho Et v. Common Cause

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a setback on Thursday after blocking its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The 5-4 ruling by the nation's highest court concluded there was sufficient reason for concern by District Courts about why the Department of Commerce wanted to add the question. According to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, “—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decision-making process.”

"In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The court's decision means the Trump administration may not have enough time to add the question to the census before it's printed at the end of the month.

'Fair Maps' Rally Held As Supreme Court Hears Gerrymandering Case

Gerrymandering: Department of Commerce v. New York

The Supreme Court will stay out of a gerrymandering case after the nation's highest court refused to find extreme political partisanship contributed to drawing the maps for congressional districts in North Carolina and Maryland.

SCOTUS's decision is widely considered a major setback for advocates of gerrymandering reform.

In two separate 5-4 votes, the justices rejected claims partisan politics played a role in how congressional districts were drawn to benefit Republicans in South Carolina and Democrats in Maryland. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."

"Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts added.

That is to say, it's the court's opinion that Congress and states are the ones responsible to pass laws preventing highly skewed partisan districts, and the courts cannot interfere without "an unprecedented expansion of judicial power."

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, saying SCOTUS was abdicating its responsibility to settle the issue. "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities."

The Supreme Court has refused to rule on such issues before, setting the precedent that drawing congressional districts is an essential political act, making it impossible to find when the gerrymandering violated Constitutional standards.

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is intended to create a political advantage for a political party by drawing congressional boundaries to establish a political advantage. This is accomplished through 'cracking', which dilutes the voting power of the opposing party's supporters in several districts, and 'packing' which concentrates the amount of the opposing party's voters into fewer districts.

Courts over the years have found it difficult to test when district boundaries cross a partisan line.

Photo: Getty Images & Wikipedia


Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content