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

7 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 July 1 – 7, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 1 – 7, 2026

Published

2 days ago

July 5, 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

Activism

NPRC Joins National Grand Jury Proceedings Seeking Accountability, Constitutional Restoration

Organizers state that testimony will explore historical and political developments that they believe have contributed to the expansion of corporate influence over public institutions and governmental decision-making. Participants are expected to discuss concerns regarding constitutional governance, individual liberties, property rights, and the protection of vulnerable populations, including seniors and persons with disabilities.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 26, 2026

Oakland Post

Photo by Billie Powers.

Special to The Post

The National Probate Reform Coalition (NPRC) has joined Toll and Roll and a growing coalition of advocacy organizations, victims, whistleblowers, and citizen groups in support of a nationally broadcast People’s Grand Jury proceeding scheduled for July 1 and July 7.

Organizers describe the event as a public forum designed to examine allegations of government abuse, judicial misconduct, legislative failures, and the erosion of constitutional protections affecting millions of Americans.

The proceedings will feature testimony from victims, families, advocates, and organizations from across the country who contend they have experienced harm through government actions, institutional neglect, and failures of oversight.

According to organizers, the People’s Grand Jury will focus on concerns involving probate courts, guardianships, conservatorships, child welfare systems, property rights, civil liberties, and what participants view as a growing disconnect between government institutions and the constitutional rights of the people they are sworn to serve.

NPRC is participating because many of the issues being examined mirror the concerns raised by advocates, victims, and families who have participated in its monthly town halls. For years, families have reported cases involving exploitation of elders, questionable guardianships, estate depletion, denial of due process, and a lack of meaningful oversight within probate court systems.

“This proceeding gives victims and advocates an opportunity to place their experiences on the public record,” said Tanya Dennis, lead facilitator of NPRC. “For too long, families have struggled to have their voices heard regarding elder abuse, probate exploitation, and government inaction. This forum allows those stories to be shared before a national audience.”

In keeping with principles of transparency and fairness, invitations have been extended to legislators, members of the judiciary, law enforcement representatives, and other public officials who may wish to respond to concerns raised during the proceedings or defend actions taken by their respective institutions.

One of the primary outcomes sought by organizers is public consideration and support for the People’s Remedy and Restoration Act, a proposed legislative framework that advocates believe would strengthen oversight, increase accountability, provide remedies for victims of governmental abuse, and restore constitutional protections.

The proceedings are expected to be broadcast nationally, providing citizens throughout the United States an opportunity to observe testimony, review evidence presented, and participate in an ongoing conversation regarding government accountability and the protection of individual rights.

Advocates hope the hearings will encourage meaningful dialogue, legislative reform, and renewed public engagement in the democratic process.

Individuals, organizations, public officials, and members of the media interested in attending or obtaining access information may contact the organizers at tollandroll2025@gmail.com.

As Americans continue to debate the future of constitutional governance, judicial accountability, and the protection of vulnerable citizens, the July proceedings are expected to serve as a significant forum for public testimony and civic engagement. For more information, go to https://tollandroll.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Local Civil Rights Attorney, Activist Walter Riley Reveals Life Lessons from 70 Years in the Movement

Widely known in Oakland for his unifying leadership on issues of social justice and human rights, Riley is also recognized for his famous son, Raymond “Boots” Riley, a rap artist, political activist, and successful filmmaker, whose latest film, “I Love Boosters,” is now in theaters and capturing national attention.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 26, 2026

Oakland Post

Walter Riley. Courtesy photo.

By Ken Epstein

Prominent civil rights attorney and activist Walter Riley recently went on radio station KPFA 94.1 to discuss his new book co-authored with local veteran organizer Jesse Strauss: “Civil Rights and Structural Attacks: Conversations with Walter Riley.”

Born in North Carolina, Riley has lived in San Francisco, Chicago, and Detroit, but his longtime home is Oakland, California.

Over the years, he was a leader in the South against Jim Crow, participated as a student in the historic 1968 San Francisco State University strike that created Black Studies and Ethnic Studies in the U.S. and scored victories in the fight for open college admissions.

He was also a labor organizer and was involved in early Black Panther Party formations, anti-war protests, and was a leader of the Progressive Labor Party, a pro-Mao, Marxist Leninist party.

In an interview on KPFA’s “Upfront” with host Brian Edwards-Tiekert on June 18, he discussed some of his formative experiences, born in 1944 to a family of sharecroppers who worked on a tobacco farm near Durham, North Carolina.

“I came from a farming family, the ninth child of 11 children,” Riley said. “My mom and dad got married as teenagers, and they were together for their entire lives. Growing up in this large family, we had to deal with various aspects of what it meant to live in an economically depressed area with parents who had come through what they called “Hoover times” (the Great Depression) in the South.

“They were proud of every one of their children when they took some stand, to develop and show some sense of dignity,” he said.

In his neighborhood, slavery was not a distant memory. There are many people “who knew firsthand what it was to have family members that had lived as enslaved people and lived in communities where enslaved people had lived.

“(Under tenant farming), the landowner negotiated for the entire family: the farmer, the wife, the children – everybody was involved on the farm. Kids were often engaged. We had to shovel, hoe tobacco to keep the weeds from taking over, to make sure that tobacco worms didn’t eat up the tobacco. If a child was old enough to plow, they would walk behind a horse or mule and plow a field, working from sunup to sundown,” he said.

The houses did not have indoor bathrooms, running water or electricity. “A lot of the names in the Black community were the same names as these slave owners. We could see the names of folks on the streets, street names of people who had enslaved people, and they were symbols to me of a world that did not see me as a human being, that has not treated my ancestors as humans, has treated us as chattel to be sold, to be owned, to be property,” Riley said

“When we were counted by our government, we were counted only for the purposes of allowing white people, white men, to have a vote.”

By 1950, when he was 6 years old, his family moved to another house, leaving tenant farming. His father took a job in construction.

“My parents wanted the younger kids to have education,” he continued. “The older kids had to work on the farms. By the time I came along, I was the second child born in a hospital. “My parents looked forward to younger kids to have more sense of independence from the economic and social depravities that they saw around them.”

Watching television, he became aware of the suffering under Jim Crow, including the lynching in Mississippi of Emmett Till in 1955 and Mack Parker in 1959.

When he was 13, he joined a picket line in town in front of a variety store chain that did not hire Black people and became active in the Civil Rights Movement. By time he was in high school, he had become a leader in the local chapter of the NAACP and met Malcolm X and later Medgar Evers, leaders who were both assassinated.

Married and with a child, he moved with his family in the early 1960s to San Francisco, attending San Francisco State University while working full time.

He participated in the San Francisco State University strike, the longest student strike in U.S. history, where students and their supporters prevailed in the face of mass arrests and daily violent police attacks.

While many people remember the strike for its historic victory – the creation of the first Black Studies and Ethnic Studies programs in the country. “But open admissions was the thing,” he said. “Open admissions had to do with people being able to go to school for free. People should be able to go to school just because they come here and say, ‘I want to go to school. I want an education’ (because) we live in a rich country.”

Studying Marxism, including dialectical materialism, he gradually began to understand structure of the system that needs to be changed, he said. “It requires a lot of study, and it still does.”