The Junk Science at the Heart of the Gerrymandering Case
The efficiency gap is an interesting but deeply problematic metric that should not be imposed by the judiciary.
Roberts, Kennedy Cast Doubt on Court’s Ability to Resolve Gerrymandering Dispute
Both justices appeared concerned about whether the court had any ability to hear Gill v. Whitford.
Gill v. Whitford
A federal court in Wisconsin, in striking down a state […]
The Supreme Court Agrees to Tackle the Biggest Election Law Case in Years. Will It ‘Weaponize’ Our Federal Courts?
Over 70 years ago, Felix Frankfurter warned the Court against getting into the “political thicket” of redistricting.
Supreme Court to Hear Major Political Redistricting Case
Justices Stop the Forced Redrafting of Wisconsin's Election District Map.
North Carolina Strikes Out a Fifth Time at the Supreme Court Over Redistricting
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the latest redistricting plan from North Carolina on Monday, holding that the state Legislature had impermissibly used race in the redistricting process for two congressional districts.
Court Overrules Federal Election Official on Proof of Citizenship
A top appeals court has overturned a federal official’s ruling […]
Crucial Texas Voting Case to Be Heard
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 26, 2015) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to states giving more political power to areas with high illegal alien populations. In a brief filed in March, the (ACRU) argued that Texas and a U.S. District Court erred in approving state senate districts based on "total population" rather than on eligible citizen voters. "Total population" includes illegal aliens. Counting non-voters, including illegal aliens, when assessing the size of senate districts, gives citizens living in areas with high numbers of illegal aliens more senate seats than areas with mostly U.S. citizens, the ACRU says in the brief, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in Evenwel and Pfenninger v. Abbott et al. The ACRU brief notes that even the United States Department of Justice uses only citizen population in allocating legislative seats in redistricting litigation. "The current Texas method violates the one-man, one-vote concept that ensures fair elections," said ACRU President Susan A. Carleson. "We're pleased that the Court is taking the case."
Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Racial Redistricting
The Supreme Court has dealt a heavy blow to efforts -- often by the Republican Party -- to draw legislative districts that pack black voters into majority black legislative districts in order to elect black representatives. In a case decided today arising out of Alabama state legislative plans, the Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act does not require the preservation and protection of legislative districts with percentages of black voters designed to produce black elected officials. Republicans and black politicians often argue that the Voting Rights Act requires line drawers to preserve proportional black representation by creating districts where black candidates are sure to win election. These plans help Republicans by bleaching out surrounding areas helping to elect Republicans. Instead, the Court ruled that what must be preserved is the "ability to elect" minority preferred candidates of choice -- who need not necessarily be minority candidates themselves. This means legislatures can dip below numeric thresholds which create majority black districts, and not necessarily offend the Voting Rights Act.
Court to Hear Texas Voter ID Case
In early September, a court in Corpus Christi begins a trial that should decide whether the current law requiring Texas voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot is constitutional. As it has happened with cases over redistricting, the Texas voter ID fight is expected to get national attention because two years ago a three-judge federal court in Washington ruled the 2011 legislation unconstitutional.