by Jon Guze
Senior Fellow, Legal Studies, John Locke Foundation
In the next few weeks — or even days! — extreme partisan gerrymandering may be rescued from legal purgatory. Is it constitutional or not? For years, we haven’t known. But by the end of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on two partisan gerrymandering cases — Gill v. Whitford, a case from Wisconsin, and Benisek v. Lamone, a case from Maryland. The decisions could alter a fundamental part of how we structure our democracy.
In the piece, Druke discusses seven possible outcomes:
1. The court rules that extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, and one of these cases has found the standard that proves it.
2. The court rules that extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. It says that while this term’s cases haven’t found the standard, the court has an idea of what one should be.
3. The court rejects the cases for procedural reasons, and the status quo is kept intact.
4. The court says that extreme partisan gerrymandering might be unconstitutional but that the standards in these cases won’t suffice.
5. The court rules that partisan gerrymandering is “nonjusticiable.”
6. The court says it hasn’t made up its mind.
7. A splintered decision.
Highly recommended, especially for those who are interested in North Carolina’s on-going gerrymandering litigation. (H/T: overlawyered.com)