This bingo card turned out to be a pretty fitting explanation of what did and did not happen in today’s debates.
First, a little bit of color: I sit behind Bill Whitford, and to his right is former California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger. Before them was the Wisconsin Senator, Tammy Baldwin. That’s great.
Anyway, take note of the above bingo failure – and what’s missing.
In general, people who follow the Supreme Court think that the Tribunal may be willing to vote to limit at least the chief of Wisconsin. Without going into detail, judges tend to point out which side they ultimately vote against. Justice Anthony Kennedy has asked many tentative questions about the state of Wisconsin’s attorneys, but no questions were asked of the judge’s attorney, Paul M. Smith. Read transcript to see more.
Kennedy seemed to think that partisan gerrymandering was a violation of the Constitution. He endorsed one of the appellant’s attorneys on a hypothesis he made: what would happen if the Wisconsin constitution said that restricted people should use traditional jamming standards. but is also beneficial for the X side? This went on for a bit, and Kennedy seemed exasperated by the lack of a definitive answer. He even went back to the topic, saying that he hasn’t been satisfied with the answer so far. In the end, it seems the appellant’s lawyer thinks it would be a constitutional violation. When asked what revision to follow, she said Fourteenth. (Unfortunately, that’s not Kennedy’s favorite amendment. His favorite is the First Amendment, which he thinks will dominate the situation because gerrymandering penalizes political party expression.)
Kennedy also seems to think that a statewide party’s voters have the right to oppose a violation in a particular county, even if they don’t live there. One key point is whether jokingly with partisan voters in part of the state is a statewide voter violation. Paul M. Smith expressed the opinion that there is a difference between racial gerrymandering (affecting voters in a county, possibly a county-specific offense) and partisan gerrymandering ( where voters choose to associate through a partisan path; therefore, voters in one part of the state are affected when other voters are concentrated in districts). Roberts thinks that makes voters distrustful that they will be arrested simply because of their partisan affiliation. Hence, it was speculated that Roberts could vote with the state of Wisconsin.
In the end, Smith was quite surprised. Roberts asked if a decision in favor of Whitford would adversely affect the Court’s reputation by engaging it in politics, and inviting numerous cases. Smith said the Court has received a lot of cases, and unless they do something, there will be a gerrymandering “festival” after 2020. Smith also said that more importantly, think about democracy itself. .
So what’s missing? If you check the bingo card above, you will see that “bingo” could have been completed if any of the following words were uttered: “equal chance”, “statistic” or “t-test” “. Interestingly, Justice Sotomayor says that there are five standards for measuring party symmetry (some of which you can read in this section. short amicus). Judges Alito and Roberts seem disliked to social sciences and math, but their votes don’t seem viable at this point. For a workaround, we will have to wait for a decision.
This leaves a loose ending: based on the oral arguments, why did the Court order it to remain in this case? Usually that’s bad news for the winning side of the lower court. However, Rick Hasen suggestions that it equals the course in the redistribution cases.