As has been well-publicized, the next session of the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Wisconsin’s legislative districts comprise an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The Court has never before found any state’s boundaries to constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
This Vox article by Nicholas Stephanopoulos explains objectively why the Wisconsin plan is exceptional and even unique. The article, to my eye, is clearer than other articles about the Wisconsin plan.
The title of the article is faulty. It is the state of Wisconsin that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, not the voters on the other side. The lower court had invalidated the Wisconsin district boundaries, and if the Supreme Court had not heard the case, its only alternative would have been to summarily affirm the lower court decision. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court necessarily thinks to the Wisconsin plan is objectionable. The article should have been titled, “Why the Wisconsin partisan gerrymander case has a solid objective basis”, or something similar. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
