What we're covering here
- NOW: The Supreme Court is handing down its opinion on the gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.
- Last week: The justices ruled that Ohio’s method of removing names from its voter rolls does not violate federal law.
The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement on the two gerrymandering opinions the Supreme Court handed down today, calling out a “missed” opportunity.
Here’s the statement from Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project:
The Supreme court sidestepped two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and Wisconsin, allowing challenged maps in two states to stand for now.
Here’s how the court phrased its decisions:
From Benisek v. Lamone (The Maryland case)
From Gill v. Whitford (The Wisconsin case)
The Supreme Court ruled on two cases concerning gerrymandering today, allowing challenged maps in two states to stand for now.
Gerrymandering is why election maps across the country can look so crazy. Politicians manipulate boundaries to favor one party or another.
The history of gerrymandering goes back more than 200 years.
The term comes from a salamander-shaped district in Massachusetts drawn during the 1810 term of Gov. Elbridge Gerry (Gerrymander is a mash-up of Gerry and salamander.)
Learn more about the history of gerrymandering in the video below:
The ruling in a Wisconsin case dodges the question of whether courts can hear claims concerning partisan gerrymandering, but the justices did make it more difficult for challengers to bring such claims.
The opinion is a blow to Democratic challengers in Wisconsin, who challenged Republican drawn maps and had won in lower court.
The Supreme court sidestepped two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering, allowing challenged maps in two states to stand for now.
The Supreme Court has issued a ruling in a Wisconsin political gerrymandering case
The case, Gill v. Whitford is a partisan gerrymander case brought by Wisconsin Democrats who challenged maps drawn by Republicans in the state.