[EL] Gill v. Whitford, parting shots and I told you so

[Schultz, David A.]

Hi all:

Pardon me for being tardy in responding to discussion threads on Gill v.
Whitford.  I was traveling and off doing training.  However, I wanted to
offer a parting shot and a shameless I told you so regarding how to argue a
partisan gerrymandering case to get Kennedy's vote.

Much has been made of dissent’s reference at 138 S.Ct. 1916, 1938,
regarding how to capture Kennedy’s vote in partisan gerrymandering.  It
discusses an appeal to the First Amendment and freedom of association
claims.

In David Schultz, Election Law and Democratic Theory, 156-182 (2014), this
is exactly the argument I make.  I reference Kennedy and Stevens on their
First Amendment turn and essentially make the argument that Kennedy seems
to want to make and which the dissent in Gill discuss.


-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180627/1224380f/attachment.html>