When presented with one of the most consequential cases of the 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments, then heard more oral arguments before issuing an opinion in mid-June that essentially sidestepped the issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court is resolving partisan redistricting cases from Wisconsin and Maryland without ruling on the broader issue of whether electoral maps can give an unfair advantage to a political party.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already heard a major case about political line-drawing that has the potential to reshape American politics. Now, before even deciding that one, the court is taking up another similar case.
Attorneys at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP are part of the legal team representing Michigan voters who filed a complaint in December over partisan gerrymandering. The suit brought to seven the number of such challenges filed since 2016 and fueled hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule the practice unconstitutional and offer guidance for how to draw district lines.
An Indiana Senate panel has advanced a bill what would set criteria for redrawing electoral districts. But the measure approved on an 8-0 vote Monday fell far short of a comprehensive redistricting overhaul that good government groups have sought for years.
The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Texas Democratic Party charging that the Republican-controlled Legislature illegally gerrymandered the state’s electoral maps.
A northwestern Indiana lawmaker wants an independent commission to draw political-district maps instead of politicians.
The Wisconsin gerrymandering case now before the Supreme Court of the United States has all the intrigue of a first-class thriller — secrecy, sophisticated computer programs, outside consultants, and carefully drawn district lines to ensure a firm grip on power. It also has echoes of a similar Indiana case from 30 years ago.