We’re a long ways from the end of the story here, but today a panel of 3 federal judges ruled that the WI GOP’s ridiculous gerrymandering of WI legislative districts is unconstitutional:
We find that Act 43 [2011 WI GOP Redistricting] was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect.
Finally, we find that the discriminatory effect is not explained by the political geography of Wisconsin nor is it justified by a legitimate state interest. Consequently, Act 43 constitutes an unconstitutional political gerrymander.
For background on this case, see Puddytat’s diary from when it was filed.
The Federal Court only ruled that WI redistricting is unconstitutional. They will be sorting out a remedy in the next month or two. After that, this is all but guaranteed to go to the US Supreme Court.
This is much bigger than Wisconsin. The plaintiffs came up with a metric called the “efficiency gap” to test whether and to what extent any given district is unfairly gerrymandered for political purposes. If it stands up, this would be a huge tool for challenging partisan gerrymanders in many other states. A major reason blatant gerrymandering has been allowed to stand is that it exists in a kind of “gray area” because the courts don’t have an objective way to define and measure whether gerrymandering exists and whether it was done for partisan advantage.
I recommend everybody bookmark Rick Hasen’s excellent Election Law Blog to follow this as it goes forward.
Monday, Nov 21, 2016 · 9:40:22 PM +00:00 · lufthase
Rick Hasen notes that this case will go directly to the US Supreme Court, without having to stop in the 7th Circuit.
This is important because if SCOTUS doesn’t say otherwise, today’s ruling will stand:
- SCOTUS refuses to hear the case — Today’s ruling stands. Good for WI, but doesn’t set national precedent for “efficiency gap” test
- SCOTUS deadlocks 4-4 — Today’s ruling stands. Good for WI, but doesn’t set national precedent for “efficiency gap” test
- SCOTUS takes the case (whether with 8 or 9 justices) — Need 5 votes to affirm the unconstitutionality of WI gerrymander. We likely have 4 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan). Need Justice Kennedy to join, and the plaintiffs have pretty much based their whole case from the start on appealing directly to him. Chief Justice Roberts is less likely, of course, but he has shown himself to be less than 100% partisan, so maybe a tiny outside chance with him too.