Supreme Court rules against Wisconsin Democrats in gerrymandering case, punts on how to draw district map: Why it matters

By Jim Campbell

June 18th, 2018

The term, gerrymandering sounds quite boring to be sure.

What follows is an explanation on how it effects the vote.

This would be a states rights issue.

A “Political Ruling,” by partisan judges would have caused chaos in our currently woeful voting system

The United States Supreme Court was right to punt on this on even though it didn’t help Republicans in this instance.


Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome.

A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged.


Otherwise, the court will rule that you “lack standing” to bring the suit and dismiss your case.

There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:

  1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.
  2. Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.
  3. Re-dressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury. (Source)

The Washington Examiner

by Melissa Quinn

June 18, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Wisconsin Democrats by sending a gerrymandering case challenging the legislative map drawn by Republicans in the state back to the district court.

Justices said the plaintiffs in the case, Wisconsin Democratic voters, did not have standing to bring the case.

The court did not dismiss the case, but sent it back to the district court “so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence, unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far, that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their votes.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the other seven justices that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing.

**For those who don’t know the player without a score care, Justice Gorsuch is standing on the right with Justice Thomas sitting in front of him to his right.



However, they said they would have dismissed the case instead of sending it back to the district court.

Monday’s opinion was released alongside a decision in a second partisan gerrymandering case involving Maryland voters who challenged a single congressional district, the lines of which were drawn by state Democrats.

In both cases, the justices declined to put forth a workable standard for addressing claims of partisan gerrymandering, and instead punted on that larger question.

For more than 10 years, the justices have been stumped by how to address claims involving the partisanship involved in the redistricting process.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Democratic voters after state Republican lawmakers created and enacted a redistricting plan after the 2010 census.





About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.
This entry was posted in punts on how to draw district map: Why it matters and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Supreme Court rules against Wisconsin Democrats in gerrymandering case, punts on how to draw district map: Why it matters

  1. This is not a member of the set of soluble problems. Each party will strive to maximize it’s representation in Congress. Neutral third parties are as rare as Unicorns.


    • JCscuba says:

      That was the point of the article my friend the Supremes kicked it back to the district court ruling and they said Nope


  2. Brittius says:

    Reblogged this on Brittius.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.