Instead of establishing doctrine to protect voters from extreme partisan gerrymandering, in its June 18thdecision in Gill v Whitford the US Supreme Court has left the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering open, much as it did in 2004 (LSE U.S. Politics Blog)
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on something unanimously this week: The justices want nothing to do with solving the nation’s extreme partisan gerrymandering crisis.
What’s gone unsaid, however, is how the court itself helped create this mess — and why their latest dodge seems likely to make it even worse (at New York Daily News, with David Daley).
The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, has upheld a restrictive Ohio election law that initiates a process to purge eligible voters from its voter list if they fail to vote in a single election. A number of other states and localities have also implemented voter list purging tactics, and it is expected that this decision will result in additional states adopting more restrictive voter list purges (at The Equation).
This morning, I stirred my green tea vigorously to see if it would reveal the Supreme Court’s opinion on two partisan gerrymandering cases that are soon to be released. The tea spilled, I scalded my lap, then wondered why any Decent American Patriot would sip tea while the nation awaits a decision of such historic significance (at The Equation).
Not to be outdone by other Secretaries who are gaining a lot more public attention, on March 26, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said “Hold my beer…” then announced that he was going along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ request to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census. The decision was announced despite concerns about the threat of a population undercount voiced by previous Census directors, the scientific and voting rights communities, and leaders in the public and private sectors (at The Equation).