[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The two figures appointed by President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested that partisan gerrymandering of Congressional constituencies was already resolved by state action, a possible sign that the highest court in the US country, dominated by a five-party conservative majority, would not intervene the issue.
David Lewis, a member of the state general assembly, said that he was proposing a 10-3 Republican advantage "because I do not think it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats ".
North Carolina defended gerrymandering by arguing that redistricting is an inherently political activity in which courts should not get bogged down.
The lawsuit against North Carolina was brought by the Common Cause government group and the League of Women Voters. Lawyers from both groups discussed separately on Tuesday.
The issue is particularly important at this time, as districts are usually redrawn every ten years at the same time as the national census.
The next census will take place in 2020. The Republicans have mainly benefited from gerrymandering after the last census. At the November 2018 session, in which Democrats took power in the House of Representatives, the GOP advantage limited Republicans' losses, according to a recent analysis by the Associated Press.
The judges heard a similar gerrymandering case in 2017, but eventually avoided the central issue. In a contest written by Judge Elena Kagan and joined by other members of the liberal wing of the court, Kagan suggested that the courts eventually come up with a solution.
A central point of contention is whether a new standard would lead to an attack on new litigation before the higher court.
Paul Clement, a lawyer representing North Carolina, warned that "these cases will come and they will come in large numbers," he said.
"And once you enter the political grove, you will not go out and tarnish the image of this court for the other cases where it needs that reputation for independence so that people can understand the fundamental difference between judging and any other politics, "Clément said.
But some court liberals have challenged this argument. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Clement that he was presenting the same argument that had been used to challenge a person's rule, a vote that the court ultimately approved, and that It did not result in such a wave of litigation.
Judge Stephen Breyer, known as a pragmatist on the bench, presented his own standard. And if, he says, gerrymandering was forbidden in extreme cases – defined as those where the party that obtains the majority of votes gets only a third or less representation?
Clement retorted that "there is no standard deviation from the proportional representation clause in the Constitution".
Later on Tuesday, the court heard a dispute brought by Republican voters in Maryland who live in a gerrymander district by Democrats.
Decisions are expected by the end of June.
[ad_2]
Source link