Reaction to Ohio Gerrymandering Decision

On Friday, Nick Stephanopoulos offered his cogent analysis of the three-judge district court decision holdings that Ohio’s congressional districts violate the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment right of association.

Politico notes that the judges on the case were ” [Sixth Circuit Judge] Karen Nelson Moore, appointed by President Bill Clinton; [U.S. District Judge] Timothy Black, appointed by President Barack Obama; and [U.S. District Judge] Michael Watson, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.”

Cleveland.com discusses the challenge that faces the Ohio legislature in enacting a new plan by June 14, as the district court ordered, given that this is “an already busy time for Republican lawmakers in Columbus, who are reckoning with passing a state budget, as well as whether to bail out two nuclear plants.”

As Rick anticipated, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has confirmed that the state will ask the Supreme Court to issue a stay of its ruling according to the Columbus Dispatch.

Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent offer a pessimistic take for opponents of gerrymandering, based on the oral arguments in the pending cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, suggesting that “conservative justices seem to believe there’s no workable standard to distinguish between a map gerrymandered so unfairly that it violates the Constitution, and one that doesn’t…”

Share

Comments are closed.