SCOTUS Gov Doc: overturned ruling against partisan gerrymandering [League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson vacated/remanded]
Monday Oct. 21, Supreme Court Order
APPEAL -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION 19-220 CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the  United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for further consideration in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).
The Hill: Supreme Court throws out challenge to Michigan electoral map
The Supreme Court, in another defeat for gerrymandering reformers, overturned a lower court's ruling that Michigan's electoral districts are overly partisan and need to be redrawn.
Monday's order follows a June decision from the nation's top court that found that questions related to partisan gerrymandering are not under the jurisdiction of federal courts.
The new order returns the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A three-judge panel in that court had ruled that 34 state legislative and congressional districts needed to be redrawn because they were designed to favor Republicans.
The League of Women Voters and a group of Michigan voters had argued that GOP officials in the state had "engaged in a concerted effort to redraw district lines to benefit Republican candidates while disadvantaging their opponents."
The three-judge district court panel agreed, writing, "Federal courts’ failure to protect marginalized voters’ constitutional rights will only increase the citizenry’s growing disenchantment with, and disillusionment in, our democracy, further weaken our democratic institutions, and threaten the credibility of the judicial branch."
The case had been put on hold by the Supreme Court as it considered similar challenges in Maryland and North Carolina, which led to the sweeping decision earlier this year and all but guaranteed that the challenge in Michigan would fail.
The decision in June was decided by the court’s 5-4 majority of Republican-appointed justices. Their opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that questions about redistricting should be left to politicians and not federal judges.
In the cases, Democrats in North Carolina had challenged congressional districts which were drawn by Republicans. In the Maryland case, Republicans claimed that Democrats in their state had politically drawn the district maps to eliminate a GOP seat.
In their dissent, the four liberal justices accused their colleagues of abdicating the court’s responsibility of safeguarding the democratic process.
