SCOTUS RULES PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING IS KOSHER, CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION IS NOT…FOR NOW
June 27, 2019
DECIDING DEMOCRACY
|The Supreme Court decided today “that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” Those are the words of CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS who led a 5-4 majority to the conclusion that drafters of the Constitution understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. And there it stays, the court says. Judges don’t have a role to play in deciding whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. “Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” wrote Roberts. “But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.”
SHIRKING ITS RESPONSIBILITY
|“For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” wrote JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN who dissented along with her four liberal colleagues. In sharing her dissent today, Justice Kagan read a long excerpt and at times couldn’t hide her emotion about the court’s decision. “The gerrymanders here — and others like them — violated the constitutional rights of many hundreds of thousands of American citizens,” she said. “The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.” She closed by saying her dissent was “with respect, but deep sadness.”
A SCOTUS SHOCKER
|A divided Supreme Court today blocked a citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census for the time being, dealing quite the unexpected blow to the Trump administration. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, joined by the court’s liberals, wrote the court’s opinion which said the Trump administration had provided a “contrived” reason for wanting the question on the census. He wrote, “If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.” The court sent the case back for more proceedings, leaving the 2020 census in a state of uncertainty.
TOP-ED
|Noah Feldman for Bloomberg writes that CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS “split the baby — again.” He reacts to the “dramatic and complicated” census opinion in which Roberts wouldn’t let Trump off the hook for questionable motivations behind the adding the question; motivations that have come under some serious scrutiny and led to additional challenges in the lower courts this week.
CENSUS STATUS UPDATE – IT'S COMPLICATED
|For The Wall Street Journal, Janet Adamy explains where we go from here with the 2020 census, and why today’s SCOTUS decision further complicates what was already going to be the most challenging census count in recent history. She notes, “The Census Bureau had planned to start printing the 2020 questionnaires by July 1, and had film with both versions of the form ready to go at the printer as of earlier this week. A Census spokeswoman said Thursday it was reviewing the decision and didn’t say whether it would delay printing or simply print the form without the citizenship question.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The New York Times reacts to the Supreme Court’s census decision and calls it a “win for good government.” The Ed Board says justices deserve credit for sending the case back for “more thoughtful decision-making.” NYT: “After oral arguments in April, many court watchers expected that they would repeat the mistake of the court’s travel ban ruling and ignore the Trump administration’s evident bad faith. Fortunately, they were wiser this time around.”
TRUE BLOOD
|The Supreme Court ruled today that police do not need a search warrant to test the blood alcohol level of an unconscious driver. The decision affirms a Wisconsin law that says anyone who drives on public roads automatically consents to a blood alcohol test — even if they aren’t awake for it. 28 states have similar laws on the books. JUSTICES ALITO, THOMAS, BREYER and KAVANAUGH joined the chief justice to make up the majority. The decision conflicts with previous court rulings in which the justices ruled that a blood draw is a significant bodily intrusion into a person’s privacy and that there are less intrusive ways of enforcing drunken driving laws against unconscious motorists. JUSTICES GORSUCH and SOTOMAYOR wrote separate dissents, with JUSTICES GINSBURG and KAGAN signing on with Sotomayor.
SCOTUS VIEWS
Supreme Court Ditches Fairness, Voter Rights And The Constitution In Gerrymandering Ruling
USA Today“When voters go to the polls, they deserve to have their votes count equally. But for decades, politicians have rigged districts to boost the votes of their friends and dilute the votes of their enemies. Now a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices has given its blessing to blatant partisan gerrymandering where politicians choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. Let’s be clear, the fight to end partisan gerrymandering does not end with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling.”
Progressives Should Be Glad They Lost The Supreme Court Gerrymandering Case
The Washington Post“Gerrymandering was not destiny; and, even without the justices’ involvement, it is not being allowed unchecked by other institutions of government, especially those at the state level. Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Missouri and Utah approved referendums in 2018 that will reduce partisanship in redistricting after the 2020 Census. The issue is now in the hands of voters at the grass roots, which is where it should be. A great danger — the corruption of the federal courts by repetitive intervention in sordid partisan fights — has been averted.”
The Supreme Court's Census Ruling Is A Victory For Truth And The Rule Of Law
Los Angeles Times“In a stunning victory for the rule of law, a bare majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the Commerce Department had not adequately justified the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. But the decision says more about how poorly the Trump administration covered its tracks than it does about the court’s willingness to rein in the administration’s worst excesses.”