A former United States Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney is praising the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for its decision on "partisan gerrymandering."
In the two cases, the high court unanimously ruled that state legislatures – not courts – have the authority to draw Congressional boundaries – except in cases where a redistricting plan targets a "racial minority for special discriminatory treatment."
The redistricting plan formulated by the Republican-controlled legislature in Wisconsin was challenged in SCOTUS by Democrats who alleged that the boundaries were gerrymandered in order to benefit the GOP.
SCOTUS’s 9–0 ruling let those boundaries stand.
However, the Supreme Court also ruled against a Republican challenge to a Democratic plan to redraw a Maryland Congressional district.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) Founder and Chief Counsel J. Christian Adams – a former DOJ attorney – explained the significance of SCOTUS’s rulings.
"It means that the Supreme Court is not going to get in the business of deciding what district lines are anytime soon,” Adams stressed. “They're going to leave that to the people who have always done it with their state legislatures.”
He then pointed out who the losers are after the decisions.
“There are people who want the courts to be deciding district lines all the time,” Adams asserted. “And this was a defeat for those people who want the courts to do it instead of legislatures."
Adams also maintained that these rulings will help candidates campaigning in the midterms.
"The court was unwilling to issue any kind of injunctions that allow the elections to go on as normal, so it will obviously have the effect of keeping the schedule," the legal expert impressed.
Adams announced that the PILF recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), arguing that the United States Constitution grants states the power over elections.