Supreme Court Punts In Maryland, Wisconsin Gerrymandering Cases

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court didn't settle any of the major issues in Maryland or Wisconsin gerrymandering cases in opinions released Monday. In Maryland Republicans argued that a new legislative district was drawn to favor Democrats, while the Wisconsin case has Democrats claiming that the GOP changed all of the state's election maps to favor conservative Republicans in the upcoming midterms. Instead of weighing in, the Supreme Court sent the Maryland case back to the state for trial, and Wisconsin Democrats must challenge each re-districting one at a time.

The Maryland case that challenges the constitutional limits of political redistricting will head to trial after the Supreme Court declined to decide the merits of arguments by Republicans that Democrats favored their party in redrawing district lines. Benisek v. Lamone focused on whether changes to election district boundaries in favor of one party is a violation of the First Amendment.

And the Wisconsin case of Gill v. Whitford, the high court opinion Monday said the court could not address an entire state map all at once, but rather must review each district one at a time. Democratic challengers hoped that a ruling would force a re-drawing of Wisconsin legislative maps in time for the November midterm election. Democrats in Wisconsin argued that GOP-drawn maps were friendly to conservatives in the state, and in violation of their constitutional rights.

Read More: Wisconsin Districts To Be Reviewed One At A Time

The Supreme Court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction in the case, reports SCOTUSblog.

Michael B. Kimberly, representing O. John Benisek, a resident of Washington County, argued the partisan gerrymandering that occurred in Maryland's 6th District under then-Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, in 2011 was a violation of the First Amendment due to the additional challenges created by shifting districts for voters.

In 2011, O'Malley created the Governor's Redistricting Advisory Committee to redraw the congressional and state legislative districts in Maryland. A new map was created, passed both the Maryland House and Senate, and was signed by O'Malley. Before the redistricting, Maryland Democrats controlled six of the state's eight U.S. House districts. After the election following the new map, the Democrats controlled seven seats.

Republicans argued the partisan redistricting caused irreparable damage to voters in the new district. Kimberly said that "Governor O'Malley and others involved in the redistricting have candidly acknowledged their intent to dilute Republican votes in the 6th District to prevent Republican voters there from reelecting Congressman Roscoe Bartlett."

"Given their evidence, (the appellants) certainly have enough to go to a jury on that question," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in March.

The Associated Press reports that in the Maryland lawsuit, the justices declined to decide any of the big questions before them:

• Should courts even be involved in the political task of redistricting?
• Is there a workable way to measure how much politics is too much?
• Do the particular plans being challenged cross that line?

The Maryland case is in its preliminary phase and will now head to a trial.

You can read the full Supreme Court opinion for Maryland here.

Read the full opinion inWisconsin's Gill vs Whitford here.

(For more news like this, find your local Patch here. If you have an iPhone, click here to get the free Patch iPhone app; download the free Patch Android app here. And like Patch on Facebook!)

Image via Shutterstock