- Our first look this week,
arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court
regarding Wisconsin's political boundaries.
This case started in 2010,
when Republicans gained complete control
of Wisconsin's government.
In 2011, Republicans redrew state Assembly district maps
to help them convert normally close elections
into legislative majorities.
The following year Republicans won only 48.6%
of the statewide vote for Assembly candidates,
but captured 60 of 99 seats.
In 2015, the case Gill versus Whitford
was filed as Democratic voters sued,
saying voting maps warped by politics
violated the Constitution.
This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear this case.
The Supreme Court has never struck down a redistricting map
based on whether it was drawn to benefit
one political party.
The court has, however, left open the possibility
that some political maneuvering may be too extreme.
The Wisconsin case is expected
to have national implications.
Wisconsin Public Radio's Capital Bureau Chief Shawn Johnson
just returned from the Supreme Court hearings
in Washington and he joins us from the state capitol,
where lawmakers are watching how it
could impact their elections.
Shawn, thanks a lot for being here.
- Thanks for having me.
- Refresh our recollections
about the arguments on both sides of this.
- Yeah, I think this case in a nutshell
kind of boils down to when partisan redistricting
becomes too partisan to the point that it violates
the Constitutional rights of the party that wasn't in power.
The voters for the party that wasn't in power
when map lines get drawn.
And so that is what frames this case,
is democrats have said indeed Wisconsin's map
was too partisan.
We don't have a voice in our state government.
And so they not only want Wisconsin's map overturned.
It would also set a national standard
so that cases like these could be brought elsewhere
in the country.
- So having heard the oral arguments,
what can you ascertain about the position of the justices?
- Well, we went in kind of knowing that there was this
conservative block who we thought viewed the cases one way
and this liberal block who viewed them another way.
A lot of the justices reaffirmed those suspicions.
You had three conservatives speak during arguments
and express quite of bit of skepticism about
whether the court should step into cases like this.
I think you'd have to say the most outspoken critic
or skeptic at least of whether or not the Supreme Court
should get involved in partisan gerrymandering cases
was Chief Justice John Roberts.
He said that if partisan gerrymandering claims
like these become something that you can take to the court,
we will get every one of them.
And that even if we based our decisions on the
latest social science, on math,
that the average person in the street is going to view
the court as siding with Democrats or with Republicans.
He said that's going to damage the reputation of the court.
Here's Chief Justice John Roberts.
- And that's going to come out one case after
another, as these cases are brought in every state.
And that is going to cause very serious harm
to the status and integrity of the decisions
of this court in the eyes of the country.
- Now, on the other side of the court,
the other persuasion of the justices,
they suggest that these legislative boundaries
in Wisconsin result in predetermined results.
- And you had kind of the counterweight to Justice Roberts'
argument delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
who's one of the four justices on the court who were
appointed by Democratic presidents.
Justice Ginsburg said what happens when you have a
legislative map that has kind of stacked the lines
to such a degree that when it comes time for elections,
voters already know the outcome.
Here's Justice Ginsburg.
- What becomes of the precious right to vote?
Will we have that result when the individual citizen says,
"I have no choice.
"I'm in this district and we know how this district
"is going to come out."
I mean, that's something that the society
should be concerned about.
- And you also heard three of the other justices appointed
by Democratic presidents say,
"Look, the case here is pretty clear.
"We know that they drew the maps as partisan as they could.
"We also know that we can measure these things now.
"That social science has advanced to a degree now that even
"judges can figure out how these maps can be evaluated."
- Meanwhile, Justice Kennedy is described
as the swing vote on this.
Did you get that sense from his questions?
- Yeah, we went into arguments thinking that he
was the pivotal vote and everybody was wondering
what kind of hints he was going to send during arguments.
I think everybody left arguments thinking the same thing,
that while you had three of the four conservatives
who seemed to tip their hand a bit as to where
they were going and a fourth, Justice Thomas,
who everybody assumes is going to vote with them.
And you had the court's four liberals
tipping their hand as well.
You had Justice Kennedy playing his cards
pretty close to his vest.
- Yeah, no, go ahead.
I understood that, too, that he asked questions
mostly pertaining to standing.
- Yeah, right out of the gate, I mean,
when arguments started,
he cut off the Wisconsin Department of Justice attorney
relatively quickly and wanted to know,
you know, whether this case would be viewed differently
if it was a First Amendment case
versus a 14th Amendment case.
He was very interested in standing.
And so that's left people kind of scratching their heads
as to what he might be thinking
as he's looking at that standing.
What he did not get into is whether or not this case
has that kind of bright line metric
to measure partisan gerrymandering.
That's something that Kennedy said in 2004
he was looking for.
We presume he's still looking for it in 2017.
But he gave no hints as to whether or not
he thought this case had what it takes.
- Briefly, with less than a minute left,
what happens if the high court overturns these maps
and what happens if they don't?
- If the high court overturns these maps,
we don't exactly know.
The presumption is you'd have a legislative map
eventually in Wisconsin that's more competitive,
that leads to more Democrats being elected
and fewer Republicans.
But we don't know.
And we don't know when that's going to happen,
whether it be before 2018.
If the court decides not to strike down Wisconsin map;
that is, it upholds the map,
does not set a new standard nationwide,
this could be the last time the court revisits this issue
for years, a decade, a generation.
Could be a long time.
- Okay, very meaningful stuff.
Shawn Johnson, thanks very much for your reporting.
- You're welcome.