Supreme Court To Hear Cases On Census And Gerrymandering
With the end of this current term coming to a
The court’s end of the year is coming up quickly, which starts in October and ends at the end of this month. The court is currently made up of a 5/4 split, with the conservatives holding the majority, but that has been shown to not always affect the court’s decisions as has been seen in the past.
Waiting for them is the question that the Trump administration has added to the census, the citizenship question, there is also the case of gerrymandering, something that has the ability to shape elections in 2020.
The question over citizen statues was presented and put in effect by the Commerce Department, to ask how many in the household are citizens or not. The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of trying to use this to scare off illegals citizens from answering the census, a move that will affect representation for some areas. The GOP for their part says this is nothing more than to get an idea of how many illegals are in the country.
This came to the Supreme Court due to a judge’s ruling in New York blocking the question as a violation of federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Two other courts have since blocked the question, this was expedited to the courts due to the time sensitivities with the census coming up. During April’s argument of the case, the conservative side of the court seemed to be taking the administrations side on this question, or at least their questions seemed to.
The administration, for their part, has said this is not only needed for the sake of getting a better idea of how many illegals are in question, but will aid in the fight to better protect our elections from illegal voting. This has been rejected by the Democrats as nothing but a political move.
This was put in motion when a group of states and immigrants activist groups sued the government to stop this question from being asked in the census.
Separate cases in North Carolina and Maryland focus on whether the justices will empower courts to impose restrictions on partisan gerrymandering.
This has been done since the creation of this nation, the party in power recreates the districts to best suite them, then the other part comes into power, switches it back to suite them better. The court is being asked if they will empower lower courts to get involved in this political exercise.
The boundaries for House districts and those in State legislators are redrawn every ten years to make changes for population growth or loss of a population, this has been done by the legislators, usually to the benefit of the party in power.
The courts are asked to do this now that these states legislators are controlled by the GOP, and the last time the lines were moved they were done by a DNC controlled legislators.
This move was challenged by special interest groups representing Democratic voters in the states, saying the boundaries were configured in such a extremely partisan way that it violated their constitutional rights. GOP voters challenged a single Democratic-Drawn US House District in Maryland, also arguing their constitutional rights were violated.
During the arguments in March, the conservative justices seemed skeptical of getting the courts involved in what has for over 200 years been a political activity, the liberal side of the court seemed more inclined to support the petition brought before the courts.
Three Cases The Court Will Accept or Reject
There are three more cases the court will decide if they will take, will pass back to the lower courts or will not give any hearing to.
The first is DACA, the decision by the Trump admiration to drop this program set up by executive action by the Obama admiration, then had it challenged when the Trump administration decided to drop it.
The second case will be heard by concerning a war memorial that is shaped like a large Christian Cross, and the question if this violates the separation of church and state and the supporting of one faith over another by the government.
During this time, if any justice is going to retire, they usually announce it now, none have done so.