Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Supreme Court Relisted Voting Cases


It’s finally June, the Supreme Court’s home stretch. The Justices will get together only a few more times to decide which Cases to grant before they part ways for the summer.

North Carolina, Harris v. Cooper, 16-166, involves what happened after the district court invalidated those districts. To guide the drawing of the remedial map, legislative leaders adopted rules that required the resulting map to preserve the state’s existing partisan balance of 10 Republican and three Democratic seats. Challengers argued that the new map was an unconstitutional partisan (not racial) gerrymander. Such claims face an uphill battle under Vieth v. Jubelirer, in which a four-justice plurality concluded that no justiciable standard exists to determine whether a districting plan constitutes an illegal partisan gerrymander, and Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred in the judgment, saying that“[t]hat no such standard has emerged in this case should not be taken to prove that none will emerge in the future.” The district court in Harris denied relief, saying its “hands appear to be tied” because existing Supreme Court law does not permit partisan gerrymandering claims. In the Supreme Court, appellants David Harris and Christine Bowser argue that the district court erred in holding that the lack of discernible standards prevented it from striking down the plan, because the plan’s architect admitted it was designed to elect as many Republicans as mathematically possible. The court has ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the appellants’ standing and the court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in holding that a lack of discernible standards prevented it from striking down as a partisan gerrymander a districting plan when the plan’s architect freely admitted it was a partisan gerrymander designed to elect as many Republicans as mathematically possible; (2) whether the district court erred in holding that it could not, on the record before it, strike down a districting plan under the Fourteenth Amendment when the plan was designed to secure “partisan advantage” for Republicans; and (3) whether the district court erred in holding that it could not, on the record before it, strike down a districting plan under the First Amendment when the plan was designed to impose burdens on Democratic voters because of their political beliefs. In addition, on May 26, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief the following issues: (1) Do the appellants have standing to challenge the remedial map as a partisan gerrymander? (2) Is the district court’s order denying the appellants’ objections to the remedial map appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1253?

North Carolina v. Covington, 16-649, seeks review of a three-judge district court’s decision invalidating North Carolina’s state legislative map as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Issues: (1) Whether any of the district court’s extensive findings of fact regarding the 28 racially gerrymandered legislative districts at issue here are clearly erroneous, and (2) whether the district court correctly applied Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama in holding that race predominated in the drawing of 28 legislative districts in North Carolina, and correctly applied the Supreme Court’s rulings in Johnson v. De Grandy and Bartlett v. Strickland in holding that those districts were not narrowly tailored to the compelling governmental interest of compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

North Carolina v. Covington, 16-1023, asks whether the same district court exceeded its jurisdiction by then partially invalidating the results of the 2016 election held using the old districts, ordering off-year special elections in substantial parts of the state, and doing all of that after North Carolina had already filed its notice of appeal.

Issues: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction to expand upon its previously ordered remedy after the state filed its notice of appeal; and (2) whether the district court exceeded the bounds of its equitable discretion by partially invalidating election results, abrogating several provisions of the state constitution and ordering a special election – all without any discussion of the competing equities.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


     
 
 


This post first appeared on The Independent View, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Supreme Court Relisted Voting Cases

×

Subscribe to The Independent View

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×