Other than establishing the test of "one man, one vote" to assure uniform district sizes in its 1962 Baker v. Carr ruling and some companion cases, the high court has been noticeably, and probably wisely, reluctant to enter what Justice Felix Frankfurter called "the political thicket" by choosing to referee highly partisan political disputes. Third, you misstate the First amendment claim.
Depending on the remedy that the court requires, the reverberations could be significant for redistricting after the 2020 census. When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, it's pretty clear-if you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, says Congress has the power, when state legislators don't provide the right to vote equally, to dilute congressional representation.
Justice Kennedy questioned the NLRB's counsel whether the arbitration agreements at issue truly prohibit employees' right to engage in concerted activity, noting that employees could still work together to obtain the same counsel, share information, and strategize about their cases; they were merely prohibited from joining their cases and litigating collectively.
In 2010, after 40 years of Democratic dominance, Republicans gained control of the legislature and governor's office.
"We will have to decide in every case whether the Democrats win or the Republicans win".
Kennedy, who has been the swing vote on a wide variety of SCOTUS rulings, staked out a novel approach in this week's High Court argument over how politicians draw legislative lines to favor themselves, focusing the partisan issue on voters' right to associate instead of the traditional "one-man, one-vote" argument that the liberal wing of the court favors. Plaintiffs Wisconsin voter Helen Harris (left) and William Whitford, a University of Wisconsin law professor, speak to reporters. For decades, the court has been willing to invalidate state electoral maps on the grounds of racial discrimination but never those drawn simply to give one party an advantage.
The way this is done is to draw the lines so that a great many Democrats are packed into just a few districts, watering down the value of each individual vote cast.
Once the process begins, it will then be up to the courts to determine the appropriate standard or formula by which to judge the partisan gerrymander; then, the court must determine what the right balance in that legislature should be.
Gerrymandering has been part of American politics since the earliest days. The larger the gap between those two, the more likely the districts have been manipulated to favor Republicans.
A similar case is brewing in Maryland, but it was brought by Republicans.
Minear, counselor to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., told four House members who'd requested Tuesday's argument be live-streamed that the chief justice shares their ultimate goal of increasing public understanding of the court. He suggested striking down this law "would cause serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country".
"Gerrymandering is distasteful", conservative Justice Samuel Alito said.
The Supreme Court has not done much in the way of marijuana legalization as it has done in other major social issues, such as civil rights in the 1950's and 60's or gay rights in more recent years. "In the context of partisan gerrymandering, that means that First Amendment concerns arise where an apportionment has the goal and effect of burdening a group of voters' representational rights".