Government

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Maryland, North Carolina Redistrict Challenges

THE AFRO — For the second time in as many years, the Supreme Court heard arguments on partisan redistricting cases from Maryland and North Carolina Tuesday, but it remains unclear whether a constitutional standard for regulating the practice will be issued.

Published

8 years ago

April 2, 2019

Capital News Service

By Carolina Velloso

WASHINGTON – For the second time in as many years, the Supreme Court heard arguments on partisan redistricting cases from Maryland and North Carolina Tuesday, but it remains unclear whether a constitutional standard for regulating the practice will be issued.

North Carolina’s entire congressional map is being contested, which is currently made up of 10 Republicans and three Democrats despite the state being almost evenly split politically.

At issue in Maryland is the state’s 6th Congressional District. Democratic lawmakers are accused of moving Republican voters out of the district that covers most of the state’s rural Northwest and putting in large numbers of Democratic voters from the Washington suburbs in order to turn the district blue.

The justices seemed to be split evenly down philosophical lines, with the more liberal wing of the court encouraging the deliberation of a manageable standard to apply to future questions of gerrymandering, while the conservative wing seeming wary of intervening in a process left largely to the states.

The question, said Chief Justice John Roberts, is whether “any partisanship that has a consequence is impermissible.”

The conservative justices pointed out dozens of times that the Constitution does not require proportional representation — the idea that the percentage of seats awarded to any party should correspond with the percentage of votes it won in the states.

Michael A. Kimberly, attorney for the voters challenging Maryland’s 6th District, said that proportional consideration should be considered when debating a possible constitutional standard. He argued that “it is a legitimate state interest to pursue proportional representation in redistricting.”

Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether “the First Amendment might require or even tolerate the regulation of speech, and in this instance, the speech is the votes, for the purpose of providing a proportional representation of viewpoints.”

The justices repeatedly asked counsel for the appellees for a test that would appropriately determine which cases of gerrymandering were so extremely partisan that they crossed a constitutional line.

The conservative justices, however, did not seem to find a suitable measure that could determine when an innately political process became too political.

“Is another way…of putting the test: I know it when I see it?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked derisively.

The court’s liberal justices pushed back, saying the problem of extreme partisan gerrymandering had gotten out of control and seemed willing to conceive of some sort of regulatory measure.

Justice Elena Kagan characterized “the court leaving this all to professional politicians who have an interest in redistricting according to their own partisan interests” as “dramatically wrong.”

Another concern expressed by the conservative justices was the possibility that the judicial branch would essentially become the arbiter of elections should the court get involved in setting a standard for redistricting.

The gerrymandering of Maryland’s 6th District, which was at issue in Lamone v. Benisek, was unique in that the map in question had been put to a referendum and was approved by 64 percent of voters.

Gorsuch still seemed hesitant to judicially intervene.

“So, in effect, you are asking the court, no matter how good the referendum might be, no matter how much the people themselves might approve these lines, this court has to tell them it — it’s unconstitutional?” Gorsuch asked counsel for the appellees.

Justice Stephen Breyer proposed a standard that would only catch the “extreme outliers,” so that not every single election would be judicially contested.

“What I’m trying to do is to figure out if there’s a way to catch real outliers,” he said, so that it would not “lead to every election contested and throw it all to the judges instead of the people.“

Breyer said he considers a scenario where a party wins a majority of the statewide vote but the minority party wins two-thirds of the state’s congressional seats to be “pretty extreme.”

Breyer thus proposed a mathematical standard whereby congressional election results would be re-examined if one party won a majority of the statewide vote but one-third or less of the congressional seats.

Steven M. Sullivan, the solicitor general of Maryland and representative of the appellant, seemed doubtful that a formula that would only catch extreme outliers for review is unrealistic.

“If you’re concerned about limiting the Court’s intervention to the extreme circumstance,” he said, “you would not be limiting it to extreme. You would be saying ‘get ready, Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee.’”

The court is expected to issue a decision on whether to keep the drawing of congressional district maps in the hands of the states by July.

This article originally appeared in The Afro.

Capital News Service

Posts by Capital News Service

Up Next

Clyburn and Sanders Introduce Bill to Expand Community Health Centers

Don't Miss

Colin Allred: His Own Man

Capital News Service

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026

Published

1 day ago

October 4, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Community

Asm. Corey Jackson Announces Launch of 24-Hour Childcare in His District

Assemblymember Corey Jackson has secured $2 million in state funding for a proposed childcare special district in Moreno Valley and Perris. This funding aims to establish a system providing 24-hour, seven-day-a-week childcare, which would be California’s first special district focused solely on childcare. The initiative seeks to address the area’s designation as a “childcare desert” and high costs for working families. The funding will cover startup, planning, and formation costs for the district. Read more about the specifics of this groundbreaking initiative.

Published

1 week ago

September 28, 2026

Post News Group

Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D-Moreno Valley). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D-Moreno Valley) has secured $2 million in state funding to launch a proposed childcare special district serving families in Moreno Valley and Perris, paving the way for a system designed to provide childcare 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The Moreno Valley-Perris Childcare Special District would be the first special district in California focused specifically on childcare, according to Jackson’s office. The state funding will cover startup, planning, and formation costs and help the district meet requirements set by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO.

The proposed district would coordinate a mixed-delivery childcare system that could include home-based and center-based care. The goal is to provide universal childcare for families who work overnight, early morning, or other nontraditional shifts.

Jackson’s office says Moreno Valley is a certified “childcare desert,” with licensed childcare spaces available for only 15% of children with working parents. Infant care in Moreno Valley averages $2,776 a month, or about 35.7% of median household income. In Perris, licensed infant care can cost more than 60% of an individual worker’s gross median earnings, according to the assemblymember’s office.

“Securing this $2 million in startup funding is a monumental victory for the working-class families of Moreno Valley and Perris who have been trapped in a childcare desert for far too long,” Jackson said.

The proposal follows Jackson’s unsuccessful effort to establish the district through Assembly Bill 2083. The legislation would have created the district as a dependent special district covering Moreno Valley, Perris and their spheres of influence, with Riverside LAFCO responsible for reviewing its formation and boundaries.

The new funding allows the district’s formation to move forward without requiring mandatory contributions from local school districts and other stakeholders, according to Jackson’s office. His spokesperson, Daniel Peeden, said Jackson hopes the district can be operating by 2028.

The proposal has faced questions from some local officials. Moreno Valley City Councilmember Ed Delgado, who is running against Jackson for the 60th Assembly District seat, said he supports affordable childcare but questioned how the proposed district would operate and how much it would ultimately cost.

“Basically, he didn’t have a plan. We didn’t see a plan,” Delgado said, adding that officials had questions about operating costs, insurance and eligibility.

“It’s going to take a lot more than $2 million to create a special district to provide affordable childcare,” Delgado said.

Delgado has suggested working with existing childcare centers to subsidize costs for local families rather than creating a new agency.

Jackson’s office says the program will lower barriers to “workforce participation” and reduce “affordability anxiety” for young families. This landmark District is poised to trigger a virtuous cycle of economic upward mobility and long-term regional prosperity in the 60th Assembly District, his office added.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Economy

Poll: Becerra Widens His Lead Over Hilton; Californians Split on Wealth Tax

A new Public Policy Institute of California poll shows Democrat Xavier Becerra leads Republican Steve Hilton by 22 points in California’s governor’s race, with 60% of likely voters supporting Becerra compared to 38% for Hilton. The September survey also reveals Californians are closely divided on a proposed one-time tax on billionaires, with 52% of likely voters in favor of Proposition 40. Affordability issues are a major factor for voters. Read more to learn about the poll’s additional findings on voter sentiment.

Published

1 week ago

September 28, 2026

Post News Group

Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a 22-point lead over Republican Steve Hilton in California’s governor’s race, while voters remain closely divided over a proposed one-time tax on billionaires, according to a new Public Policy Institute of California poll.

The September PPIC survey found that 60% of likely voters support Becerra, compared with 38% for Hilton. His lead is actually narrower than it was in July, when he led Hilton 61% to 36%.

Becerra leads among independent voters, with 57% supporting him compared with 38% for Hilton. Party loyalty remains strong, with 93% of Democratic likely voters backing Becerra and 92% of Republicans supporting Hilton.

Hilton leads in the Central Valley, where 52% of likely voters support him compared with 46% for Becerra.

Affordability remains a major factor: 65% of likely voters say candidates’ plans to address cost-of-living issues are “very important” to their vote.

“Affordability continues to be top of mind for Californians when considering their choice for governor,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC Statewide Survey director and Miller Chair in Public Policy.

The poll also found a narrow split over Proposition 40, a proposed one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion. Fifty-two percent of likely voters said they would vote yes, while 46% said they would vote no.

Support for the wealth tax varies sharply by party. Seventy-two percent of Democrats favor Proposition 40, compared with 46% of independents and 21% of Republicans.

Two competing measures also drew majority support. Fifty-one percent back Proposition 41, while 54% support Proposition 42, both of which could affect the wealth-tax proposal.

The findings come as Californians express broader frustration with the state’s political direction. Seventy-one percent of likely voters expect bad economic times in California over the next year.

“Californians are clearly grumpy and aren’t enamored with any particular political party or movement,” Baldassare said.

The survey interviewed 1,745 California adults, including 1,103 likely voters, from Sept. 4-10. The margin of error for likely voters is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.