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 firstname.lastname@example.org and at https://twitter.com/DanMcCue
In The News
WASHINGTON — A bill introduced in the Senate last week would require the Supreme Court to televise its hearings. Senators... Read More
WASHINGTON — A bill introduced in the Senate last week would require the Supreme Court to televise its hearings. Senators who introduced the bill said it would help to ensure transparency and better public understanding of how the court operates. “Rulings made by justices in our... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion for women's rights whose death ahead of the 2020 election allowed the... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion for women's rights whose death ahead of the 2020 election allowed the Supreme Court to become more conservative, will be remembered during ceremonies Friday at the high court. Ginsburg, who served as a justice for 27 years and... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed skepticism during a hearing Tuesday of the Biden administration’s authority to forgive... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed skepticism during a hearing Tuesday of the Biden administration’s authority to forgive more than $400 billion in student debt. The Education Department is invoking the national emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic to eliminate as much as $20,000... Read More
WASHINGTON — An oil rig supervisor who earned as much as $248,000 a year working for Houston, Texas-based Helix Energy... Read More
WASHINGTON — An oil rig supervisor who earned as much as $248,000 a year working for Houston, Texas-based Helix Energy Solutions Group was entitled to additional overtime pay after his dismissal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week. The case, Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt,... Read More
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court showed minimal interest Tuesday in reducing the legal protections for internet companies over inflammatory... Read More
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court showed minimal interest Tuesday in reducing the legal protections for internet companies over inflammatory information their users post online. The court’s greater concern was unleashing a flood of lawsuits that could drive technology companies out of business if they eliminate... Read More
WASHINGTON — Political pressure is mounting on the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics for itself similar... Read More
WASHINGTON — Political pressure is mounting on the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics for itself similar to the one that binds all other federal courts. In a move last week, members of Congress reintroduced a bill that could compel a code of... Read More