The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday released Wisconsin state legislative maps that were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, but left the maps of the governor’s Congress in place.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this month selected the legislative and congressional maps proposed by Evers after hearing oral arguments from various groups that had also submitted maps. The case went to court after Evers and Republican state lawmakers could not agree on a set of maps and asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene.
The state legislative map of Evers created an additional majority and minority district, arguing that it was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). But Republicans argued that the state Supreme Court violated the equality protection clause by unjustifiably selecting race-based maps.
In its ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said the Wisconsin Supreme Court is “free to accept additional evidence if it prefers to reconsider the governor’s maps rather than choose from other submissions. However, any new analysis must comply with the our jurisprudence on equal protection. “
The court said there is still “enough time” to adopt maps before the Aug. 9 Wisconsin primary.
The Supreme Court said that “Evers’ main explanation for drawing the seventh black-majority district was that there is now a population of black residents large and compact enough to fill it.” The unsigned per curiam The ruling said the reasoning embraced “only the kind of uncritical maximization of the majority and minority district that we have expressly rejected.”
“[Evers] He provided almost no other evidence or analysis to support his claim that the VRA required the seven black-majority districts it drew, “the court ruling said.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had told the parties to select the maps that would make the “slightest change” to the current maps. Judge Brian Hagedorn, the court’s conservative alternative vote, said “the Senate and Assembly maps proposed by Evers produce fewer general changes than other presentations.” Hagedorn also determined that Evers’ proposals had complied with state and federal constitutions.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Judge Elana Kagan, called the Supreme Court’s decision “not only extraordinary but also unnecessary.”
“The Wisconsin Supreme Court correctly preserved the possibility that a suitable plaintiff could file equal protection or a challenge (Voting Rights Act) to the appropriate forum,” Sotomayor wrote. “It would allow this process to take place, rather than further complicating these procedures with legal confusion through summary revocation.”
Democrats would probably have made some gains with Evers’ proposal, but Republicans were likely to retain their majorities in the legislature.
The Wisconsin-adopted map of Congress will remain in place as the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Republican congressmen to reverse those lines. These lines are expected to have a GOP advantage in the Wisconsin Congressional delegation.
The Supreme Court has so far refrained from ordering the redrawing of Congress maps that have already been approved. In its rulings, the court cited the upcoming primary election dates as a reason not to drastically change the lines of Congress before the 2022 midterm elections.
In Alabama, the high court stopped a lower federal court order to redraw the state congressional map and cracked down on attempts by anti-gerrymandering advocates and Democrats hoping to add a second congressional district. black majority in the state.
In Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Republican-led attempts to throw away maps adopted by their respective state supreme courts. Both maps kept the political division of the Democratic and Republican seats relatively egalitarian and competitive.
But in their decisions this cycle of district redistribution, conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court judges left the door open for these maps to be changed after 2022 and for a debate on how much power they should have. state courts on the process of redistribution of districts.
In a written dissent to the North Carolina court ruling, Judge Samuel Alito cites the election clause in the U.S. Constitution, which states that “the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, will be prescribed in each state by its legislature. ” Alito supports the argument of Republican rivals that state legislatures have exclusively this power to redistribute districts.
“If the language of the election clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit to the authority of state courts to repeal actions taken by state legislatures when they prescribe rules for conducting federal elections,” he wrote. in their dissent.
Republican leaders in the North Carolina legislature have filed another petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their argument over the election clause.
Four states are still in the process of redrawing their congressional lines, while at least 21 states are currently or have seen litigation on their approved state legislative or legislative lines, according to the Brennan Center.
Add Comment