|
The
justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both
states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in
the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries.
The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief
orders.
The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states
had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating
boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats -
a practice known as partisan gerrymandering - in violation of
the U.S. Constitution.
While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives
districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges
districts in the state legislature as well.
The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the
justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining
that electoral maps designed by a state's majority party
unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to
support the other party.
But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh
two other gerrymandering cases - one from North Carolina and the
other from Maryland - that could decide definitively whether
federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan
gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of
June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against
the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.
In the North Carolina case, Republican legislators were accused
of rigging congressional maps to boost their party's chances. In
the Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced similar allegations
over one U.S. House district.
The Ohio and Michigan lawsuits accused Republican-controlled
legislatures in the two states of discriminating against
Democratic voters for their political views in violation of the
U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal treatment under the law
and freedom of association.
Critics have said that gerrymandering, a feature of U.S.
politics for generations, has become increasingly extreme and
effective at advancing the interests of a political party as a
result of precise voter data and powerful computer technology,
illegally shaping the outcome of elections.
The Supreme Court has previously intervened when legislators
impermissibly sought to dilute the voting power of racial
minorities, but it has never curbed gerrymandering for purely
partisan purposes.
The Michigan and Ohio lawsuits were filed by voting rights
groups and individual Democratic voters. Nine U.S. House and 25
state legislative districts were at issue in Michigan, while
Ohio's case involved 16 U.S. House districts.
A three-judge panel in Detroit on April 25 ruled in the
Democratic voters' favor in the Michigan case, calling
gerrymandering a "pernicious practice that undermines our
democracy," and ordered state officials to draw new maps by Aug.
1.
A three-judge panel in Cincinnati on May 3 sided with the
Democratic voters in the Ohio case, and ordered the state to
create a plan to fix the map by June 14.
Electoral districts are typically redrawn once a decade after
the U.S. census to reflect population changes. In many states,
the party in power controls the map-making.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|
