SCOTUS dismisses challenge to racially gerrymandered voting map for Virginia's House of Delegates

[Anonymous]

One victory in the moral arc of the universe!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/virginia-racial-gerrymandering-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a challenge to the voting map for Virginia’s House of Delegates, saying that state lawmakers were not entitled to appeal a ruling striking down parts of the map on race-discrimination grounds. The Supreme Court’s action is likely to help Democrats in the 2020 election.

The vote was 5 to 4, and it scrambled some of the court’s usual alliances. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch were in the majority, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer was among the dissenters.

The case, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, No. 18-281, arose from a squabble among state officials. The state’s attorney general, a Democrat, decided not to appeal the ruling striking down the voting maps. The state’s House of Delegates, controlled by Republicans, filed its own appeal.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the House was not authorized to pursue the appeal on behalf of the state and had not suffered the sort of direct injury that would give it standing to sue in its own right.

[Anonymous]

Agree - hurrah!

[Anonymous]

Amazing.

I’m surprised Roberts voted for it and Justice Illegitimate #1 (Gorsuch) dissented.

I don’t trust Roberts as far as I could throw him. He’s a GOP partisan through and through.
I’m happy for this decision but I worry there’s another shoe to drop in future cases as Roberts plans his political course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing.

I’m surprised Roberts voted for it and Justice Illegitimate #1 (Gorsuch) dissented.

I don’t trust Roberts as far as I could throw him. He’s a GOP partisan through and through.
I’m happy for this decision but I worry there’s another shoe to drop in future cases as Roberts plans his political course.

He didn't. Gorsuch was in the majority. Please read before posting

[Anonymous]

Although the victory was favorable to the Democrats, I think this may be a trap as the decision wasn't about the evils of gerrymandering. I think SCOTUS found that the Republicans had no standing to sue for a state decision...so in states where Democrats aren't in the majority and face an egregious gerrymandered map, SCOTUS will tell them they have no standing to sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although the victory was favorable to the Democrats, I think this may be a trap as the decision wasn't about the evils of gerrymandering. I think SCOTUS found that the Republicans had no standing to sue for a state decision...so in states where Democrats aren't in the majority and face an egregious gerrymandered map, SCOTUS will tell them they have no standing to sue.

Yes, that’s what happens when the law is applied the same way to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Only a hyper-partisan would expect anything else.

[Anonymous]

I always call Gorsuch Justice Stolenseat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although the victory was favorable to the Democrats, I think this may be a trap as the decision wasn't about the evils of gerrymandering. I think SCOTUS found that the Republicans had no standing to sue for a state decision...so in states where Democrats aren't in the majority and face an egregious gerrymandered map, SCOTUS will tell them they have no standing to sue.

Yes, that’s what happens when the law is applied the same way to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Only a hyper-partisan would expect anything else.

Except that of the states with egregiously gerrymandered districts to support a political party, 14 are in areas Republicans govern, and 2 are in an area where Democrats govern. So this decision helps Democrats in Virginia but will hurt them everywhere else. So much for one man, one vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although the victory was favorable to the Democrats, I think this may be a trap as the decision wasn't about the evils of gerrymandering. I think SCOTUS found that the Republicans had no standing to sue for a state decision...so in states where Democrats aren't in the majority and face an egregious gerrymandered map, SCOTUS will tell them they have no standing to sue.

Yes, that’s what happens when the law is applied the same way to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Only a hyper-partisan would expect anything else.

Except that of the states with egregiously gerrymandered districts to support a political party, 14 are in areas Republicans govern, and 2 are in an area where Democrats govern. So this decision helps Democrats in Virginia but will hurt them everywhere else. So much for one man, one vote.

This is one of the more nonsensical things I’ve read here in a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although the victory was favorable to the Democrats, I think this may be a trap as the decision wasn't about the evils of gerrymandering. I think SCOTUS found that the Republicans had no standing to sue for a state decision...so in states where Democrats aren't in the majority and face an egregious gerrymandered map, SCOTUS will tell them they have no standing to sue.

Yes, that’s what happens when the law is applied the same way to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Only a hyper-partisan would expect anything else.

Except that of the states with egregiously gerrymandered districts to support a political party, 14 are in areas Republicans govern, and 2 are in an area where Democrats govern. So this decision helps Democrats in Virginia but will hurt them everywhere else. So much for one man, one vote.

I'm not an attorney, so take this with that caveat...but I don't read the situation as quite so cut-and-dry. In this particular case, the House was appealing a lower court decision on the basis that the House, one chamber of a bicameral legislature, was harmed by the new maps. The ruling is that the House as an institution was not harmed by the new maps, even if new members were. There was a hint that if both chambers had brought the suit, the outcome might be different because it could be interpreted as a balance of powers issue. But the Senate was not part of the suit, so there was no evidence that the Virginia Legislature as a whole was harmed.

I don't see how the above would preclude private citizens who thought they were being discriminated against from bringing a suit against racial gerrymandering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although the victory was favorable to the Democrats, I think this may be a trap as the decision wasn't about the evils of gerrymandering. I think SCOTUS found that the Republicans had no standing to sue for a state decision...so in states where Democrats aren't in the majority and face an egregious gerrymandered map, SCOTUS will tell them they have no standing to sue.

Yes, that’s what happens when the law is applied the same way to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Only a hyper-partisan would expect anything else.

Except that of the states with egregiously gerrymandered districts to support a political party, 14 are in areas Republicans govern, and 2 are in an area where Democrats govern. So this decision helps Democrats in Virginia but will hurt them everywhere else. So much for one man, one vote.

I'm not an attorney, so take this with that caveat...but I don't read the situation as quite so cut-and-dry. In this particular case, the House was appealing a lower court decision on the basis that the House, one chamber of a bicameral legislature, was harmed by the new maps. The ruling is that the House as an institution was not harmed by the new maps, even if new members were. There was a hint that if both chambers had brought the suit, the outcome might be different because it could be interpreted as a balance of powers issue. But the Senate was not part of the suit, so there was no evidence that the Virginia Legislature as a whole was harmed.

I don't see how the above would preclude private citizens who thought they were being discriminated against from bringing a suit against racial gerrymandering.

That is not what the decision says at all.