GERRYMANDERING TODAY AT SCOTUS | A Con Law Class That Predicts The Future
December 5, 2016
STAYING IN THE MIX
|Amy Howe in SCOTUSblog recently noted, “The conventional wisdom is that the court is mostly shying away from controversial cases and topics, as it waits to learn when it will have a ninth justice and who that justice will be.” Today’s docket though tells a different story. The justices heard arguments in redistricting disputes from North Carolina and Virginia, having to consider how race plays a role in the process of drawing legislative maps. The cases are Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections and McCrory v. Harris.
IN THE THICK OF IT
|Garrett Epps in The Atlantic previewed today’s two cases and considers how they might shake out come decision day. He notes the court will likely split between the three conservative justices and the four moderate liberals who support a careful application of the Voting Rights Act. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY is much harder to predict. Epps writes, “He is not as comfortable as some on the court with giving a wink and a nod to political gerrymandering.”
A CON LAW CLASS THAT PREDICTS THE FUTURE
|In The Washington Post, Will Baude shares an old constitutional law exam question he put before his students back in 2015 – one that he said seemed humorous at the time, but keeps coming to mind due to recent events. It’s a long question though well worth the read. It begins, “It is January, 2017, and DONALD TRUMP has just been elected President of the United States…”
AAAAAAND ACTION!
|Ilya Somin for The Washington Post responds to an earlier piece from Ryan Beckwith in TIME which addressed film and TV plots involving constitutional crises that have at least some plausible chance of occurring in real life. However, Somin says the real danger to constitutional democracy isn’t a dramatic, unforeseen event, but instead a gradual deterioration of constitutional norms.
OTHER NEWS
Where Unfair Voting Practices Begin
The New York Times“The fate of the ruling now rests with the Supreme Court, which has two options: affirm or reverse it without argument, or hear oral arguments and consider the decision on its merits. Justice Anthony Kennedy has expressed an openness to an argument like the one that succeeded in Wisconsin, which suggests that there might be a majority to uphold the decision.”