The Story:
On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a challenge to a redistricting plan enacted in Wisconsin in 2011. Plaintiffs, via attorney Paul Smith, contended that blatant partisan gerrymandering (that is, efforts by one party so to draw district lines as to undermine the opposition’s ability to elect representatives) is unconstitutional.
How a Swing Vote Reacted:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely regarded as the swing vote on issues of gerrymandering, didn’t ask Smith any questions. This may indicate that he found Smith’s argument compelling and didn’t think it required further clarification.
The Thing To Know
Chief Justice John Roberts, who has long been skeptical about challenges to district maps, said that if plaintiffs win, the Court may hurt its public reputation. The average person might think the resulting decision “a bunch of baloney.”
ory:
On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a challenge to a redistricting plan enacted in Wisconsin in 2011. Plaintiffs, via attorney Paul Smith, contended that blatant partisan gerrymandering (that is, efforts by one party so to draw district lines as to undermine the opposition’s ability to elect representatives) is unconstitutional.
How a Swing Vote Reacted:
Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely regarded as the swing vote on issues of gerrymandering. He didn’t ask Smith any questions. This may indicate that he found Smith’s argument compelling and didn’t think it required further clarification.
The Punch Line
Chief Justice John Roberts, known to be skeptical about challenges to redistricting, told Smith that if the Court does reject the district map, it might hurt its public reputation, since the average person might think the resulting decision “a bunch of baloney.”
