[EL] Order of a stay in Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case

[Josh Douglas]

Here's another point to add to Rick's excellent analysis of the stay
question in the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case: if the Court issues
a stay and the current map is used for the 2018 election, *that*
legislature (or at least half of the senators, who are elected to a
four-year term) will be drawing the map for the *next* redistricting cycle.
That is, the longer the current gerrymandered map is used, the more likely
that those elected under it will make the line-drawing decisions in the
next round.



On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
> *What to Watch for in WI Supreme Court Partisan Gerrymandering Order:
> Order on a Stay <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93195>*
>
> Posted on June 18, 2017 8:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93195> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> As early as Monday morning, the Court may announce whether it will hear
> the appeal in Gill v. Whitford, concerning the constitutional challenge to
> Wisconsin legislative districting as a partisan gerrymander.
>
> I’ll be writing more if/when the Court grants a hearing in the case (and I
> expect the grant of the hearing almost certainly, though not necessarily
> Monday).
>
> But once the Court grants a hearing, the question will be whether the
> Court stays a lower court order requiring the WI legislature to redistrict
> by November so that there will be new districts ready for 2018. WI has
> asked for that lower court order to be put on hold until resolution of the
> case at the Supreme Court, and given the likely timing of things, granting
> the stay would almost certainly mean the old districts would have to be
> used for the 2018 elections no matter what the Supreme Court does, as there
> would be no chance to create new districts.
>
> The granting or denial of a stay requires the Court to weigh many factors,
> but one of the biggest factors is likelihood of success on the merits. In
> other words, granting of a stay is a good (but not necessarily great)
> indication that the Supreme Court would be likely to reverse. That means
> the stay is a good indication the partisan gerrymander finding of the lower
> court would be reversed. And a decision to deny the stay (and require WI to
> draw new districts in the interim) would be a good indication that the
> lower court finding of a partisan gerrymander will stand (even if the Court
> does not agree with the particular analysis of the lower Court).
>
> As with many of these things, I expect this comes down to what Justice
> Kennedy wants to do (assuming he is not retiring at the end of this term)
>
> More tomorrow, if there is an order.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93195&title=What%20to%20Watch%20for%20in%20WI%20Supreme%20Court%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Order%3A%20Order%20on%20a%20Stay>
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170618/e7311a0b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170618/e7311a0b/attachment.png>