What the Supreme Court’s gerrymandering decision means for 2020
Whichever party controls the state legislature after the 2020 elections will be able to redraw the lines based on data from the 2020 census.
Watch 9:52
Supreme Court ends term with major rulings on census, gerrymandering
The Supreme Court ended its term with two major rulings that could have long-running implications for fundamental U.S. political processes. It blocked a census citizenship question, at least for now, and declared federal courts have no role in policing partisan…
Supreme Court says federal courts have no role in policing partisan gerrymandering
In a decision that could reshape U.S. politics, the Supreme Court says federal courts have no role in policing partisan redistricting.
Why June could be a blockbuster month for Supreme Court decisions
Three cases are likely front-page news because of their potential as landmark decisions.
The brief orders from the justices do not telegraph the outcome of the redistricting cases that are expected to be decided by the end of June.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati ruled unanimously that district boundaries were manipulated for partisan gain by Republican mapmakers.
"Their primary goal was to draw maps that advantaged Republicans, disadvantaged Democrats, and ensured that Republicans could enjoy durable majorities in Michigan's congressional delegation and in both chambers of the Michigan legislature for the entire decade," the judges wrote.
Supreme Court justices have previously called statistical methods of measuring partisan gerrymandering 'sociological gobbledygook' and 'a bunch of baloney.'…
The high court on Tuesday was hearing more than two hours of arguments in two cases involving the issue. The first case involves North Carolina's heavily Republican congressional map, and the second involves a map drawn by Democrats in Maryland.
Additional Support Provided By:
