Supreme Court Sides With Republicans in Wisconsin Redistricting Case
WASHINGTON — The Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in not sufficiently considering the actual requirements of the Voting Rights Act when it imposed a map drawn by Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers over other proposals, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday.
In an unsigned ruling, a majority of the justices sided with Wisconsin’s Republican-led legislature, which had been seeking a stay of the state Supreme Court’s ruling.
But the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court decided instead to consider the Republicans’ filing as a request for certiorari, granted it, and reversed the state court’s ruling.
“The question that our [Voting Rights Act] precedents ask and the court failed to answer is whether a race-neutral alternative that did not add a seventh majority-black district would deny black voters equal political opportunity. Answering that question requires an ‘intensely local appraisal’ of the challenged district,” the justices said. “When the Wisconsin Supreme Court endeavored to undertake a full strict-scrutiny analysis, it did not do so properly under our precedents, and its judgment cannot stand.
“On remand, the court is free to take additional evidence if it prefers to reconsider the Governor’s maps rather than choose from among the other submissions. Any new analysis, however, must comply with our equal protection jurisprudence,” the opinion states.
“Summarily correcting the error gives the court sufficient time to adopt maps consistent with the timetable for Wisconsin’s August 9th primary election,” the justices added.
The underlying case stems from the Republican-led Wisconsin legislature’s inability to draw maps Evers would accept and sign into law.
At an impasse, the legislature and the governor turned to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which had already agreed to hear an original action brought by a group of voters seeking to overturn the maps because they each allegedly diluted the voting power of Black voters.
Rather than attempt to draw new maps itself, the state Supreme Court invited the parties and intervenors — including the legislature and the governor — to propose maps that complied with the state Constitution, the federal Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act.
It was at this point that Evers submitted a map that included a seventh, majority-Black district. Evers claimed the additional district was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
In adopting the governor’s map, the court explained, “[W]e cannot say for certain on this record that seven majority-Black assembly districts are required by the VRA.” Nevertheless, it concluded the governor’s map would pass muster.
The justices’ unsigned order reversed the ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and sent the case back to the state court for another look.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority’s decission is “unprecedented.”
“In an emergency posture, the Court summarily overturns a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision resolving a conflict over the State’s redistricting, a decision rendered after a 5-month process involving all interested stakeholders,” she wrote. “Despite the fact that summary reversals are generally reserved for decisions in violation of settled law, the Court today faults the State Supreme Court for its failure to comply with an obligation that, under existing precedent, is hazy at best.”
Sotomayor went on to say the majority’s decision is “also unnecessary.”
“The Wisconsin Supreme Court rightly preserved the possibility that an appropriate plaintiff could bring an equal protection or VRA challenge in the proper forum. I would allow that process to unfold, rather than further complicating these proceedings with legal confusion through a summary reversal,” she wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in the dissent.
Dan can be reached at email@example.com and at https://twitter.com/DanMcCue
In The News
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Emails and phone calls from same-sex couples, worried about the legal status of their marriages and... Read More
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Emails and phone calls from same-sex couples, worried about the legal status of their marriages and keeping their children, flooded attorney Sydney Duncan’s office within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. The ruling last week didn’t directly... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new poll finds a growing percentage of Americans calling out abortion or women’s rights as priorities... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new poll finds a growing percentage of Americans calling out abortion or women’s rights as priorities for the government in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, especially among Democrats and those who support abortion access. With midterm... Read More
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices on Thursday approved the Biden administration’s attempts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocol, or the... Read More
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices on Thursday approved the Biden administration’s attempts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocol, or the “Remain in Mexico” border policy, dealing a blow to Republican-led states’ attempts to prolong the enforcement of Trump-era immigration policy. The justices’ decision in Biden v.... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as the first Black woman on the nation's highest court. The 51-year-old Jackson is the court's 116th justice, and she took the place of the justice she... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear an appeal from North Carolina Republicans that could ultimately remove... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear an appeal from North Carolina Republicans that could ultimately remove state court authority over congressional redistricting. If they decide for the petitioners in Moore v. Harper, the justices would dramatically limit when state courts could intervene,... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday dramatically limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday dramatically limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, dealing a major blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change. The 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts largely revolved around... Read More