The justices sent a case on legislative maps back to a state court for another look, but they refused a request to block the state’s congressional maps.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Wisconsin’s Republican-led Legislature on Wednesday in a dispute over competing voting maps for the state’s legislative districts.
The justices’ unsigned order reversed a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that had selected the map drawn by Gov. Tony Evers over other proposals, and it sent the case back to the state court for another look.
The majority said the state court had not considered carefully enough whether the Voting Rights Act, a federal law that protects minority voting power, required the addition of a seventh assembly district in which Black voters made up a majority.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, dissented, saying that “the court’s action today is unprecedented.” She added that “the court today faults the State Supreme Court for its failure to comply with an obligation that, under existing precedent, is hazy at best.”
In an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers for the Legislature and four voters called the governor’s map a “21st-century racial gerrymander,” focusing on the fact that it increased the number of State Assembly districts around Milwaukee in which Black voters made up a majority to seven from six. The Legislature’s map dropped the number to five.
They argued that “maximization of majority-minority districts in a redistricting plan” was unconstitutional, noting that the seven districts in the governor’s plan all had bare majorities of Black voters.
Justice Brian Hagedorn, writing for the majority in the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-to-3 decision, indicated that the question was in some ways a close one.
“We cannot say for certain on this record,” he wrote, “that seven majority-Black assembly districts are required” by the Voting Rights Act. “But based on our assessment of the totality of the circumstances and given the discretion afforded states implementing the act, we conclude the governor’s configuration is permissible.”
But Justice Hagedorn, a conservative who sided with the Wisconsin court’s three liberals, added that a map with fewer majority-Black districts could impermissibly pack Black voters into some districts, diluting their power.
In dissent, Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler wrote that Mr. Evers had overemphasized race in drawing his map.
“History is littered with racial animus, hostility, discrimination” and disparate treatment, she wrote. “The equal protection clause demands that governments in the United States rise above the human temptation of dividing by race and treat individuals how basic dignity demands they be treated: as individuals.”
In response, lawyers for Mr. Evers, a Democrat, said that the Legislature and the voters who filed the emergency application had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue; that it was too late for the Supreme Court to intervene given the preparations needed for this year’s elections; and that it was not the Supreme Court’s role to serve as “the map-drawer for Wisconsin.”
Wisconsin’s legislative maps have for the last decade been among the most gerrymandered in the nation, a result of aggressive cartography from the Republican majority elected in 2010. In 2018, when Mr. Evers led a Democratic sweep of statewide elections, Republicans retained a 19-to-14 advantage in the State Senate and a 63-to-36 majority in the Assembly.
Mr. Evers created his own commission to draw new maps based on the 2020 census figures. The Republican majority ignored them, and in November, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that new maps must hew to a “least-change” approach from the gerrymandered 2010 maps.
The governor and the Legislature both submitted maps to the court, which selected Mr. Evers’s versions this month. Under his proposal, Republicans were highly likely to retain their legislative majorities, though they were certain to shrink by a few seats.
The Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday angered Wisconsin Democrats.
After refusing to consider Voting Rights Act claims “in other states because ‘it’s too close to the election,’ the U.S. Supreme Court today violated its own precedent and any measure of common sense,” said Sachin Chheda, an ally of Mr. Evers who is the director of the Fair Elections Project in Wisconsin. “Never has it been clearer that the U.S. Supreme Court majority will do anything it can to advance Republican interests, rather than the law, the Constitution and the will of the people.”
The Supreme Court has already agreed to consider the role race may play in drawing voting districts in a case from Alabama that it will hear in its next term, which starts in October. In that case, Merrill v. Milligan, No. 21- 1086, the court reinstated a congressional map that had been drawn by the State Legislature, blocking a ruling from a federal court that the map diluted the power of Black voters.
The Alabama case differed from the Wisconsin one in at least two ways: It involved federal rather than state elections and a ruling from a federal rather than a state court.
In a second unsigned order on Wednesday, without noted dissents, the court rejected a separate emergency application concerning Wisconsin’s congressional districts.
The practical consequences of the order were likely to be minor, as the State Supreme Court said it chose the new congressional map, which was also drawn by Mr. Evers, because it hewed most closely to one drawn by Republicans in 2011. The state’s House delegation is currently split 5 to 3 in favor of the G.O.P., though Republicans are favored to win a sixth seat under the new maps.
The congressmen said the Wisconsin Supreme Court had performed a bait-and-switch in soliciting proposed maps. In November, the court said it would favor the map that minimized changes to the previous one. But it also indicated, according to the congressmen, that it would consider not only so-called core retention, a measure of voters who remained in their prior districts, but also whether new maps avoided splitting counties, municipalities and communities of interest.
But when the court chose a map in March, it “swapped its holistic least-change approach, which approach was to take account of multiple factors, for a core-retention-maximization-only standard that looked exclusively to the core-retention scores,” the congressmen told the Supreme Court in an emergency application.
The state court selected the map submitted by Mr. Evers, which retained 94.5 percent of voters in existing districts; the map submitted by the congressmen retained 93.5 percent. Both maps took account of other factors, the congressmen wrote.
In relying on only core retention, they wrote, the state court violated their due process rights. Had they taken notice of the state court’s actual criteria, they wrote, they would have submitted a different map.
Lawyers for the governor accused the congressmen of opportunism.
“It takes true chutzpah for petitioners to complain about a supposed bait-and-switch,” the governor’s lawyers wrote. “They urged the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt a least-change approach that would ‘maximize core retention’; now they insist that the court violated their due process clause rights by prioritizing core retention.”
Lawyers for the congressmen added that the governor’s map had a second flaw: It deviated from perfect population equality by including districts with 736,714 people, 736,715 people and 736,716 people even though the “mathematically ideal” district would contain 736,714.75 people.
Here, too, the governor’s lawyers accused their adversaries of inconsistency, saying they had twice said the map satisfied equal apportionment. In any event, they added, “petitioners have not identified a single case striking down a map with a plus-or-minus-one deviation.”
Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.
U.S. - Latest - Google News
March 24, 2022 at 01:55AM
https://ift.tt/pTbz3Er
Supreme Court Sides With Wisconsin Republicans in Redistricting Case - The New York Times
U.S. - Latest - Google News
https://ift.tt/ohBxyKj
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Supreme Court Sides With Wisconsin Republicans in Redistricting Case - The New York Times"
Post a Comment