SCOTUS will hear redistricting case with big implications for Texas Republicans

SCOTUS will hear redistricting case with big implications for Texas Republicans

A federal court ruled previous year that Secretary of State Jon Husted was following the law by throwing out ballots that had minor errors such as signing a name rather than printing it and leaving a digit out of a social security number. Then they will have a response deadline of Friday, July 7.

The Supreme Court has for decades forbidden racial gerrymandering, but it has repeatedly shied away from addressing partisan gerrymandering. They achieved this by packing likely Democratic voters into three districts, while spreading likely Republican voters across 10 districts.

Michael B. Kimberly, the lawyer bringing the suit, said he had been watching the Wisconsin case. That happened before in 2006-2007, he added.

But the Supreme Court has always been tolerant of partisan gerrymandering - and some justices have thought that the court shouldn't even be involved. Depending on the ruling, up to seven states' congressional maps could be affected - including Texas, according to Michael Li, redistricting and voting counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

"As I have said before, our redistricting process was entirely lawful and constitutional, and the district court should be reversed", Schimel said.

Earlier this year, justices sided with Democrats and civil rights groups who challenged the North Carolina maps arguing that they unnecessarily packed African-Americans into two districts.

The term gerrymander was introduced by the MA governor in 1812 when he signed into law the means to create a voting district in the shape of a salamander in order to help the electoral prospects of his political party.

But the Supreme Court will hear a case to decide if the state wrongfully removed people from Ohio's voter rolls.

"Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory", said Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center, who will argue the case next fall. He was unhappy with a lower court's ruling, which declared the maps unconstitutional. Conversely, by splitting those same partisan voters into multiple districts, they are said to be "cracked" into districts to avoid being able to elect one of their own.

In the past the Supreme Court has ordered voting districts to be redrawn based on racial gerrymanders but has not had to deal with such severe partisan gerrymandering as the Wisconsin case claims.

Wisconsin Republicans drew the maps in 2011 after they took full control of state government in the 2010 elections. The result is that while Republicans won only a minority of the statewide vote - 48.6 percent - they captured a 60 of 99 seats in the state Assembly.

"The Supreme Court is a pretty big planet, and its gravitational pull is pretty strong", said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who tracks redistricting cases on his All About Redistricting website.

"This has become such a big problem in the United States, we have been so bitterly partisan divided over the last decade or so and the redistribution process has been one of the things that people point to when we talk about why we are so bitterly divided".