When is a decision not a decision? When the Supreme Court shies away from politics. Historically, the justices have been loath to get their hands dirty by intervening in political disputes. Bush v. Gore was a rare exception and they only intervened when there was seemingly no end to the election outcome. Campaign finance reform was a free speech issue that the justices could sink their teeth into. But the issue of redistricting is pure politics and has been handled as such by both political parties in the states since time immemorial.
In this case, or I should say cases, since two were handled at once, the issue was down and dirty politics.
In Wisconsin, the case was named Gill vs. Whitford. Democrats claimed the Republican-controlled legislature packed Democrats into a few districts, leaving a majority of Republicans with outsize influence in most of the state. Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts used that argument in not deciding on the merits of the case, saying the plaintiff had not shown he was personally harmed by being stuck in a district that is overwhelmingly Democrat. The chief justice sent the case back to the lower courts where the petitioner will get another chance to show that harm.
In the case of Maryland, Benisek vs. Lamone, Republicans said “they wuz robbed” when Democrats took a district centered in western Maryland and looped it to the south to pick up votes in heavily Democratic Montgomery County which includes the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Even the former Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, said the district was gerrymandered, but it was ok because it was in response…
