Should Democrats Be Happy Over Supreme Court Gerrymandering Ruling?
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson addresses the impact of the SCOTUS ruling on Michigan’s electoral map, and columnist Charles Lane speaks on partisan dimensions of the ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court building
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court closed the door on lawsuits over partisan gerrymandering.
The controversial decision effectively kills a Michigan lawsuit that would have forced the state to redraw many of its districts before the 2020 election.
But Michigan is still among a handful of states that has decided, on its own, to eliminate partisan district-drawing. Voters did this by voting to approve Proposal 2 last year. What will this decision mean for our new anti-gerrymandering law?
And the court ruled on other controversial cases. They include a case about whether the Trump administration can put a question about U.S. citizenship on the 2020 census. This is another ruling that is important here in Michigan, which could lose another congressional seat based on the census count.
Jocelyn Benson is Michigan’s Secretary of State, and was heavily involved in the Michigan gerrymandering lawsuit. Last week’s ruling “was a sharp turn away from years of case law,” says Benson.
Charles Lane is an editorial writer and columnist for the Washington Post, who previously covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the Post. He wrote a column last week titled “Progressives should be glad they lost the Supreme Court gerrymandering case.”
