The U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a much-watched Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, inviting it to reconsider its position that the Constitution does not create a judicial remedy for partisan gerrymandering. Should the Court uphold the challenge to Wisconsin districts, the implications for Maryland would be immediate and dramatic, since Maryland’s gerrymander is more extreme than Wisconsin’s and there is good evidence on the record (thanks in part to recent depositions from top officials) that its motivations were political. I joined Bryan Nehmen on WBAL yesterday to discuss how this affects the Maryland debate.
I also wrote a piece for Cato on the national implications, cautioning that the euphoria in some circles about an impending change in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is at best premature. The Justices by a 5-4 margin stayed the lower court order from Wisconsin, which hints, at least, that Justice Anthony Kennedy might not be persuaded by the advocates hoping to get him to open wide the door he left open in his 2004 concurrence in Vieth v. Jubelirer.
A couple of additional relevant Maryland links from before the decision: Nancy Soreng and Jennifer Bevan-Dangel in the Washington Post (“Maryland shouldn’t wait for other states to start redistricting”); Karen Hobert Flynn, The Hill;
Kojo Nnamdi show last month with Ashley Oleson (MRRC colleague, but no relation) and Del. Kirill Reznik (D-Montgomery County); Yael Grauer/Yes! (“Has Arizona Found a Solution to Gerrymandering?”, discussing Maryland reform efforts).