Supreme Court Throws Out Challenge To Maryland's Congressional Map, Blocks Census Query

In cases including one brought by seven Maryland Republicans, the Supreme Court Thursday ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political question and that the courts do not have a role to play in reviewing those claims.

The ruling was read by Chief Justice John Roberts. In a separate ruling, the court put a hold on the Trump administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census

Read the full opinion in the redistricting case.

"No one can accuse this Court of having a crabbed view of the reach of its competence," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority."

The court's liberal justices dissented in the 5-4 ruling. Justice Elena Kagan said technology had made gerrymandering far easier, and said the majority couldn't dispute how gerrymanders "undermine democracy."

“For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities," Kagan wrote.

The decision could embolden gerrymandering when districts are drawn following the 2020 census.

Federal courts in five states concluded that redistricting plans put in place under one party’s control could go too far and that there were ways to identify and manage excessively partisan districts. Those courts included 15 federal judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents reaching back to Jimmy Carter.

But the five Republican-appointed justices decided otherwise.

The decision effectively reverses the outcome of rulings in Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio, where courts had ordered new maps drawn and ends proceedings in Wisconsin, where a retrial was supposed to take place this summer after the Supreme Court last year threw out a decision on procedural grounds.

Proponents of limiting partisan gerrymandering still have several routes open to them, including challenges in state courts.

In the Maryland case, Republican voters sued over the drawing of the 6th Congressional District. The district was redrawn in 2011 to be more friendly to Democratic candidates. The following year, Democrat John Delaney unseated incumbent Republican Roscoe Bartlett. The statewide congressional map was petitioned to referendum, but voters approved the new map.

Former Gov. Martin O'Malley said in a 2017 deposition that it was "part of my intent" to see that seat go to a Democrat.

In support of the plaintiffs, Gov. Larry Hogan filed a joint amicus brief with former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since Hogan took office, he has pushed for redistricting reform in Maryland. After the ruling, he said he will re-introduce that legislation next year.

“Today’s ruling was terribly disappointing to all who believe in fair elections. I pledge to vigorously continue this fight, both in Maryland and across our nation," Hogan said in a statement. Gerrymandering is wrong, and both parties are guilty. It stifles real political debate, contributes to our bitter partisan polarization, and deprives citizens of meaningful choices. The voters should pick their representatives, not the other way around. I will do everything in my power to restore free and fair elections for the people."

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said the ruling made clear the need for national action.

"The Supreme Court ruling only strengthens the need for Congress and the President to work together to create a set of rules across the country, and I renew our call on Congress to present a set of rules and for the President to sign it," Miller said in a statement. "With this lawsuit over, I hope we can put the issue of the 2011 Redistricting to rest and focus on the many pressing issues facing all Marylanders."

House Speaker Adrienne Jones said she will speak with delegates and Attorney General Brian E. Frosh about how to approach 2021 redistricting.

"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court didn’t offer a national solution to what is clearly a national problem," Jones said in a statement.

Joanne Antoine, executive director of Common Cause Maryland said she was disappointed in the ruling.

"They (the justices) are showing us that they are out of touch with the American people and with Marylanders who have shown us that Democracy works best when every voice is heard, and every voice is counted," Antoine told WBAL NewsRadio.

Antoine said Common Cause Maryland will continue to work with Governor Hogan to convince lawmakers to set up a redistricting commission.

In the census case, the court said the Trump administration’s explanation for wanting to add the question was “more of a distraction” than an explanation. The administration had cited the need to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

The president, in Japan for the G20 summit, called the decision "totally ridiculous" and said he has asked lawyers if the Census can be delayed until the Supreme Court can allow the question to be asked as part of the 2020 count.

.....United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2019

It’s unclear whether the administration would have time to provide a fuller account. Census forms are supposed to be printed beginning next week.

Roberts again had the court’s opinion, with the four liberals joining him in the relevant part of the outcome.

A lower court found the administration violated federal law in the way it tried to add a question broadly asking about citizenship for the first time since 1950.

The Census Bureau’s own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen.

Immigrant advocacy organizations and Democratic-led states, cities and counties argue the citizenship question is intended to discourage the participation of minorities, primarily Hispanics, who tend to support Democrats, from filling out census forms.

The challengers say they would get less federal money and fewer seats in Congress if the census asks about citizenship because people with noncitizens in their households would be less likely to fill out their census forms.

Evidence uncovered since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in late April supports claims that the citizenship question is part of a broader Republican effort to accrue political power at the expense of minorities, the challengers say.

The Constitution requires a census count every 10 years. A question about citizenship had once been common, but it has not been widely asked since 1950. At the moment, the question is part of a detailed annual sample of a small chunk of the population, the American Community Survey.