Supreme Court throws out North Carolina redistricting ruling

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters



Mon Jun 5, 2017 | 10:00am EDT

By Lawrence Hurley | WASHINGTON

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that required North Carolina to urgently redraw state legislative districts found to have been be mapped out in a way that diluted the electoral clout of black voters.

The high court, with no recorded dissents, sent back the case to a three-judge federal district court panel, which had ruled in November that the state should draw new districts and hold a special election. The Supreme Court in January put that ruling on hold while it decided whether to hear the state's appeal.

The Supreme Court separately left in place an earlier ruling by the same court from last August that said the districts were racial "gerrymanders," with boundaries drawn to diminish the voting power of minorities, and violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

###

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election-idUSKBN18W1TF?il=0

[elleng]

1. The Supreme Court Upheld a Ruling Against North Carolina's Redistricting, says AP/Time.

'The Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that struck down 28 state House and Senate districts in North Carolina because they violated the rights of black voters. But the justices rejected the court's order to redraw the districts and hold a special election.

The action by the justices Monday sends the matter back to the lower court, which could order new districts in time for the regular cycle of elections in 2018.

Democrats hope new district maps will help them break the Republican stranglehold on the state legislature.

Democrats need to capture three House seats or six Senate seats currently held by Republicans to eliminate the GOP's veto-proof majorities. That would enhance the power of Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.

A panel of three federal judges in North Carolina that struck down the districts as illegal racial gerrymanders had ordered the drawing of new districts in time for special elections this year. But the Supreme Court blocked the order for the new districts. The matter is back in the hands of the lower court.

The high court's action follows last month's ruling in which the justices struck down two North Carolina congressional districts because they diminished the voting strength of the state's black residents.

The districts were initially drawn in 2011 when Republicans controlled the legislature and the governor's office. Civil rights groups and black voters challenged the districts, complaining that they packed too many black voters into some districts to make surrounding districts whiter and thus more likely to elect Republicans.'

http://time.com/4805283/supreme-court-north-carolina-redraw-districts-decision/

Appears somewhat confusing, especially considering the headlines.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Reuters article sortof confusing - One from AP (@Time) is better

I had posted what elleng did which was clearer. Editing...

[a kennedy]

3. So help, what does it mean??? and thanks. eom

[CousinIT]

4. USSC upheld the ruling that districts were gerrymandered, but sent redraw order back to lower court

It's now up to the lower court to require redrawing of districts (again).

Basically USSC said: "yea, the districts are badly gerrymandered but we won't rule on whether they ought to be redrawn, let lower court decide that"

Anyone correct me if wrong, please!

[Volaris]

7. Yep sounds like that to me, as well.

Why would the Supreme Court order those districts redrawn, when the lower court has the power to do so.
The SC agreed it's gerrymandered all to hell and back, and then decided that's not an excuse for this case to even BE here (yet. If the lower court WONT order the redraw, and then someone sues them, sure, but right now this isn't even our House soooo...NO).

[onenote]

8. Not whether they need to be redrawn but by when and what happens in the meantime

The lower court's ruling not only told the General Assembly to redraw the districts, but also declared that members of the General Assembly elected in 2016 for two year terms should have their terms limited to one year and then have to face a new "special" election under the redrawn districts. It is that part of the order -- shortening terms, requiring special elections -- that the SCOTUS, not surprisingly, shot down as having not been sufficiently justified by the lower court.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Reads to me like "yes, they're gerrymandered, but you can't have special elections in 2017 ...

... with new districts. But you can have the districts redrawn before the regular 2018 election". But I could easily be wrong.

[cstanleytech]

6. Ya sounds like that.

To bad though criminal charges cannot be filed against those who did the gerrymandering though.

[Ligyron]

9. That was blatant partisanship.

Really bold of them like, "whatcha gonna do libtards?".

[JudyM]

11. HUGE impact of this opinion. Not that they can't order special elections, but that they need to

more thoroughly analyze whether a special election is indeed justified, rather than waiting till 2018.

"obvious considerations include the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early elections are imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty."

*****What is fascinating about this is that the Supremes are spelling out their criteria for whether there should be s new election for POTUS in the event evidence demonstrates that the tRump/Putin teams conspired to illegally influence the election outcome and that, presumably, that effort made the difference in the election outcome.

[aggiesal]

10. Sounds like the court said ...

We agree that NC gerrymandering is illegal, but we won't do anything about.

I'm sure the lower court will rule to redraw the districts by 2018,
but we'll let you get away with cheating in 2016.

Oh, by the way, if you cheat again in 2018, we won't be able to hear
that case until 6 months after the election, so continue cheating.

Business as usual.

[cstanleytech]

16. They didnt say that the ruling more seems like one of

"Rather than waste the time to rush new districts though to hold an election this year and then be forced to hold another one the next year as well simply take your time to redraw the districts fairly and hold them as you normally would in 2018."
Or atleast thats how it sounds to me, I do wish though that there could be criminal charges filed against the Repugnants for trying this shit.

[aggiesal]

19. Do you believe that NC Republicans will do the right thing? ...

They've already shown that they'll do whatever it takes to keep
from losing control.

Come 2018, they will gerrymander the districts illegally again,
knowing that lawsuits will not be heard until after the 2018 election.

They'll get away with it again.

Supreme Court should have forced them to redraw the districts and
have a special election.

[cstanleytech]

23. If they had a choice, no of course not but the courts will I assume be watching them very carefully

now and will likely appoint someone to do it if they try any shit and I really doubt the Repugnants want that to happen because they could lose far more if the feds have to come in.

[Hortensis]

15. "Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April

after the case had been argued, did not participate in the decision." "Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy joined Alito's dissent." 5 for, 3 against, 1 abstaining.

So we don't know how Gorsuch would have voted, but I'm very unhappy with Roberts and Kennedy.

[Yo_Mama]

20. They did not interfere with the finding, but with the remedy (special election).

It's about the timing of the remedy, basically.

[Yo_Mama]

21. It means that the lower court may rule that special elections are necessary, but it must do a

better job of justifying such a decision. That's all it means. The districts will be redrawn.

[JudyM]

13. ! This opinion shows how the Supremes will likely evaluate whether to hold new elections for POTUS

in the event evidence of tRump/Russia bears out.

Check it out:

"obvious considerations include the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early elections are imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty."

[brooklynite]

14. The Supreme Court WILL NOT RULE on holding new President Elections...

...because they have no Constitutional Authority to do so.

Article II, Section 1 states:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows"

It does NOT say: "four years unless someone decides the Election was unfair". The only Constitutional provisions which allow for a change of the President are Impeachment and Conviction, or temporary removal by the Vice--President and Cabinet.


Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

"2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

The States did that. There is no Constitutional right for voters to participate in the Presidential Election, and no provision for a "do-over" if some or all of the votes aren't counted accurately.

And while I shouldn't need to mention it, gerrymandering has no impact on Statewide elections or the selection of Statewide Electors (with the sole exception of Nebraska and Maine).

[cstanleytech]

18. Aye and what sucks if they did impeach Trump and Pence the next in line is Paul Ryan followed by

an extensive list of other repugnant Repugnants.

[Yo_Mama]

22. Uh, no. Just no. This has nothing to do with US presidential elections.

It would be Congress that has the constitutional authority to impeach, if that were found necessary. Which it won't, at this time.

[GulfCoast66]

24. You forgot your sarcasm thingy.

Or you do not really understand our constitution.

I prefer to assume you forgot the sarcasm thingy.