>
Source: 30dB.com – Supreme%20Court-and-Gerrymandering
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to block Merrick Garland from getting a Supreme Court hearing—and the ensuing nomination and appointment of constitutionalist Neil Gorsuch—was particularly evident in the case of Abbot V. Perez, a close 5-4 ruling that said the lower courts in Texas were incorrect in their opinion that racial gerrymandering was at work. Of the four Texas districts at the center of the case, the Supreme Court found three were not racially gerrymandered. Justice Sonia Sotomayor vehemently disagreed, writing in her dissent, “The fundamental right to vote is too precious to be disregarded in this manner.” The Supreme Court was at least willing to consider the Texas case because it concerned racial gerrymandering, but with three other recent partisan gerrymandering situations in North Carolina, Maryland, and Wisconsin, SCOTUS opted to punt all of them away rather than issue a ruling. Twitter isn’t pleased with what this all means for voter suppression and the upcoming Midterms. Over the past 14 days, “Supreme Court + Gerrymandering” has just a 15 percent positive score. –Alex Shultz
Republished from 30dB