Advertisement

Supreme Court allows partisan districts, blocks census query

Updated: June 27, 2019 06:59 PM

In two politically charged rulings, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow Thursday to efforts to combat the drawing of electoral districts for partisan gain and put a hold on the Trump administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

On the court's final day of decisions before a summer break, the conservative justices ruled that federal courts have no role to play in the dispute over the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.

Advertisement

Voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court.

The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.
The decision was a major blow to critics of the partisan manipulation of electoral maps that can result when one party controls redistricting.


More from KSTP: 

Census, redistricting decisions due on high court's last day

High court lets Virginia voting go ahead under redrawn map

Justices seem ready to OK asking citizenship on census


The districting plans "are highly partisan by any measure," Roberts said.

But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.

In dissent for the four liberals, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities." Kagan, in mournful tones, read a summary of her dissent in court to emphasize her disagreement.

Federal courts in five states concluded that redistricting plans put in place under one party's control could go too far and that there were ways to identify and manage excessively partisan districts. Those courts included 15 federal judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents reaching back to Jimmy Carter.

But the five Republican-appointed justices decided otherwise.

The decision effectively reverses the outcome of rulings in Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio, where courts had ordered new maps drawn, and ends proceedings in Wisconsin, where a retrial was supposed to take place this summer after the Supreme Court last year threw out a decision on procedural grounds.

Proponents of limiting partisan gerrymandering still have several routes open to them, including challenges in state courts. There is a pending North Carolina lawsuit.

The North Carolina case has its roots in court decisions striking down some of the state's congressional districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

When lawmakers drew new maps as a result, Republicans who controlled the legislature sought to perpetuate the 10-3 GOP advantage in the congressional delegation. Democratic voters sued over the new districts, complaining that they were driven by partisan concerns.

The voters won a lower court ruling, as did Democrats in Wisconsin who challenged state assembly districts. But when the Supreme Court threw out the Wisconsin ruling on procedural grounds that did not address the partisan gerrymandering claims, the justices also ordered a new look at the North Carolina case. A three-judge court largely reinstated its ruling.

In Maryland, Democrats controlled redistricting and sought to flip one district that had been represented by a Republican for 20 years. Their plan succeeded, and a lower court concluded that the district violated the Constitution.

The high court agreed to hear both cases.

In the census case, the court said the Trump administration's explanation for wanting to add the question was "more of a distraction" than an explanation. The administration had cited the need to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

There was no immediate response from the White House on either Supreme Court decision Thursday.

It's unclear whether the administration would have time to provide a fuller account. Census forms are supposed to be printed beginning next week.

Roberts again had the court's opinion, with the four liberals joining him in the relevant part of the outcome.

A lower court found the administration violated federal law in the way it tried to add a question broadly asking about citizenship for the first time since 1950.

The Census Bureau's own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen.

Immigrant advocacy organizations and Democratic-led states, cities and counties argue the citizenship question is intended to discourage the participation of minorities, primarily Hispanics, who tend to support Democrats, from filling out census forms.

"It would drive the census in the state of Minnesota dangerously close to not having entire households included," says Annastacia Belladonna-Carrara, of Common Cause in Minnesota.

That could result in a big undercounting of people living in the state, which could have serious consequences. Federal funding for many programs and the number of congressional seats are all based on population. After the 2010 Census Minnesota nearly lost one of its eight seats in the U.S. House.

"The last time we kept (the House seat) by just over 8,000 people after the 2010 census," says Susan Brower, the Minnesota State Demographer. "We're right back in the same position this time around. Very, very close."

Evidence uncovered since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in late April supports claims that the citizenship question is part of a broader Republican effort to accrue political power at the expense of minorities, the challengers say.

The Constitution requires a census count every 10 years. A question about citizenship had once been common, but it has not been widely asked since 1950. At the moment, the question is part of a detailed annual sample of a small chunk of the population, the American Community Survey.

The case stems from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' decision in 2018 to add a citizenship question to the next census, over the advice of career officials at the Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department. At the time, Ross said he was responding to a Justice Department request to ask about citizenship in order to improve enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar issued a statement Thursday regarding both of the court's decisions.

In regards to the redistricting ruling:

"Today's Supreme Court decision gives a green light to politicians who manipulate congressional districts. This is wrong. How we divide our electoral maps should not be political. It should be a fair, non-partisan process that puts the people first, not political parties. That is why I have joined my colleagues in cosponsoring the For the People Act, which would require independent state commissions to draw district lines.

"Partisan gerrymandering undermines the principles of our democracy. Today's rulings represent a setback, but Congress has the power to pass laws that will eliminate gerrymandering once and for all."

In regards to the census question ruling: 

"The census is part of our country's constitutional obligation to count everyone and serves as a guide for critical decisions like the distribution of community resources and the apportionment of congressional districts. Non-partisan experts agree that the addition of a citizenship question – removed over 65 years ago – will undermine an accurate census. With new evidence that the Administration acted with discriminatory intent now under consideration in a federal district court, it is clear that there is no legitimate reason to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. I call on the Administration to abandon this effort and refocus our resources on a full and fair census that accurately counts the American people." 

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey also issued a statement regarding the court's decision on the census question: 

"Today's decision is welcome news for cities and diverse communities who rely on a fair and accurate census count for everything from critical federal funding for affordable housing and transportation infrastructure to representation in Congress. In Minneapolis, we will continue to double down on our work to boost participation in the 2020 Census and ensure everyone is counted."

Connect with KSTP


Join the conversation on our social media platforms. Share your comments on our Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter pages.

Credits

Associated Press

Copyright 2019 - KSTP-TV, LLC A Hubbard Broadcasting Company

Advertisement

Raising Red Flags: Minnesota police chiefs and sheriffs weigh in on gun law

Minneapolis considers studying role of police response to drug overdose calls

Cloudy sky, mild weather expected Tuesday

Man accused of labor trafficking pleads guilty

KSTP/SURVEYUSA: 44 percent of Minnesotans surveyed favor impeachment

Advertisement