Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to Sycophant's blog Subscribe


Special Features


See Vieth v. Jubelirer which implicitly overturned Bandemer. That gets us to Gill v. Whitford, argued a week or so ago with a decision expected sometime before the end of the term.

Issues: (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
See 5, that has to do with the "political question doctrine" i.e. the constitution commits redistricting to the state legislatures, inherently political institutions, and it ain't for courts to decide political matters.

I hate to tell you are wrong, but you aren't even close to what the Court said in Vieth v. Jubelirer.

The claim of political gerrymandering in congressional redistricting plan was nonjusticiable, because there were no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such a claim. NOT because it was an inherently political question that ain't for the Court's to decide.

"There are, then, weighty arguments for holding cases like these to be nonjusticiable. However, they are not so compelling that they require the Court now to bar all future partisan gerrymandering claims. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, makes clear that the more abstract standards that guide analysis of all Fourteenth Amendment claims suffice to ensure justiciability of claims like these."

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 270 (2004)

In fact, the Court left open the possibility of a First Amendment challenge that was not brought up in Vieth.

"While the equal protection standard continues to govern such cases, the First Amendment may prove to offer a sounder and more prudential basis for judicial intervention in political gerrymandering cases. First Amendment analysis does not dwell on whether a generally permissible classification has been used for an impermissible purpose, but concentrates on whether the legislation burdens the representational rights of the complaining party's voters for reasons of ideology, beliefs, or political association. That analysis allows a pragmatic or functional assessment that accords some latitude to the States. See, e.g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271. Pp. 1792–1798."

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 270 (2004)

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable