[EL] Political question doctrine question (re: Ohio partisan gerrymander struck down)

Sun May 5 04:23:43 PDT 2019

I think Tara's probably right that the question of whether the R.I. charter
government was "republican" wasn't really joined in *Luther*.  But *Luther *is
also not germane to my question for a more fundamental reason:  The Court
there simply held that the Constitution afforded the political branches the
authority to determine which state government was legitimate (contra Tara,
I wouldn't call this a "factual" question) and, arguably whether that
government was "Republican" in nature (although the latter might be dicta,
as Tara argues).  To be sure, Brennan in *Baker *later described *Luther *as
holding "that the Guaranty Clause is not a repository of judicially
manageable standards which a court could utilize independently in order to
identify a State's lawful government"; if memory serves, however, the Court
in *Luther *didn't actually rest any of its holdings (or dicta) on the idea
that the Guaranty Clause question suffers from a "lack of judicially
discoverable and manageable standards"--which is the primary issue in the
gerrymandering cases.  As Rick Pildes notes, *that *aspect of the PQD
probably didn't emerge until *Baker v. Carr *itself (although I'd have to
go back to the post-*Luther *Guaranty Clause cases to check that).

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 6:52 AM Grove, Tara <tlgrove at wm.edu> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> To the extent it might be useful, I published a piece on the history of
> the political question doctrine a few years back: Tara Leigh Grove, *The
> Lost History of the Political Question Doctrine,* 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1908
> (2015), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577323
>
>
>
> In the nineteenth century (as described on p. 1915-24), “political
> questions” were not constitutional questions but instead were factual
> determinations made by the political branches that courts treated as
> conclusive in the course of deciding cases.  *Luther v. Borden *(discussed
> on p. 1924-29) was part of that earlier doctrine (what I call the
> “traditional political question doctrine”).  That traditional doctrine was
> different in important ways from the post-*Baker v. Carr* version.
>
>
>
> All my best,
>
>
>
> Tara
> ------------
> Tara Leigh Grove
> Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
> P.O. Box 8795
> Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
> (757) 221-2482
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> http://ssrn.com/author=1275741
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 4, 2019 9:16 AM
> *To:* Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> *Cc:* Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>; ConLawProf <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>;
> fedcourtlitigation at lists.aila.org; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [conlawprof] Re: [EL] Political question doctrine question
> (re: Ohio partisan gerrymander struck down)
>
>
>
> Rick, you don’t count Luther as a political question case? The State
> Supreme Court did reach the merits.
>
>
>
> e
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 4, 2019, at 7:39 AM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> Marty,
>
> Your question has to be answered in two parts.  First, since *Baker v.
> Carr *launched the modern political-question doctrine, the Court has
> never held something to be non-justiciable solely for the reason that there
> were “no judicially manageable standards.” Second, the Court since *Baker
> *has found a political question to exist in only two cases:  *Nixon *(the
> judge, not the President), where the Court concluded there was a clear
> textual commitment to give Congress the sole power to impeach, and *Gilligan
> v. Morgan, *in the aftermath of the Kent State shootings, where the Court
> held it inappropriate for courts to engage in ongoing supervisory
> jurisdiction over the National Guard (though damages were available for
> unconstitutional conduct).
>
>
>
> There simply were not a lot of cases in the lower courts, obviously, that
> raised these questions at the time the Court decided *Nixon *or *Gilligan*.
> For more on this, see John Harrison, The Political Question Doctrines, 67
> Am. U. L. Rev. 457, 459 (2017).
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Marty
> Lederman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2019 1:21 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; ConLawProf <
> conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>; fedcourtlitigation at lists.aila.org
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Political question doctrine question (re: Ohio
> partisan gerrymander struck down)
>
>
>
> I've never really thought this through, and perhaps the answer's obvious
> one way or the other, but thought I'd toss it out to you all here:
>
>
>
> Has the SCOTUS ever held that something was a nonjusticiable federal
> question because of a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
> standards" (which the Court will likely do in the next few weeks re:
> gerrymandering) *after *several lower courts had "discovered and managed"
> such standards?
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Breaking: Unanimous 3-Judge Court, in 300-Page Opinion, Strikes Ohio
> Congressional Districts as Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymanders
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D104993%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3D5SxpQLsDiQdPYGsofVgXfv67bItlqAxHECOeyWSH5jk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422579412&sdata=DMNxlHWBMMZeR08yzt4GoU9eLTvU7bHKrkJ1QE7y6B4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Posted on May 3, 2019 10:07 am
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D104993%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3D5SxpQLsDiQdPYGsofVgXfv67bItlqAxHECOeyWSH5jk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422579412&sdata=DMNxlHWBMMZeR08yzt4GoU9eLTvU7bHKrkJ1QE7y6B4%3D&reserved=0>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fauthor-3D3%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3D06F3ac3w8nzHjltTv_xWWdU6h1EJRqhhfXUrJvdw7J8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422589407&sdata=BTp%2F%2FlhDbxCfBc4j2a52BMxFS1kdIeMAs8xpdKpAg7I%3D&reserved=0>
>
> You can find the opinion at this link
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.scribd.com_document_408562889_Ohio-2DRedistricting-2Ddecision%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3DUNr7hAx2PzK2Q5vEiw7jo7LvN7fbDQIkTz5Mq0LLVP0%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422589407&sdata=PacskNkWe0T4ZPq4fCoKztdbxtuqPq%2FCnvGwfc7Ga7g%3D&reserved=0>.
> From the introduction:
>
> *We join the other federal courts that have held partisan gerrymandering
> unconstitutional and developed substantially similar standards for
> adjudicating such claims. We are convinced by the evidence that this
> partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate
> justification accounts for its extremity. Performing our analysis district
> by district, we conclude that the 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic
> voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed
> toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined. We conclude
> that the map unconstitutionally burdens associational rights by making it
> more difficult for voters and certain organizations to advance their aims,
> be they pro-Democratic or pro-democracy. We conclude that by creating such
> a map, the State exceeded its powers under Article I of the Constitution.
> Accordingly, we declare Ohio’s 2012 map an unconstitutional partisan
> gerrymander, enjoin its use in the 2020 election, and order the enactment
> of a constitutionally viable replacement. *
>
> I suspect that Ohio, as Michigan just did when faced with a similar
> ruling, will ask the United States Supreme Court to stay this ruling
> pending the decision in the pending partisan gerrymandering cases out of
> North Carolina and Maryland. I expect the Court will grant that request.
>
> What the Supreme Court ends up doing here is uncertain, but it is quite
> remarkable how many lower courts, many of them unanimous, have now issued
> decisions, along similar contours
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D104888%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3DWMIeIg4jKztC2j1Ly2_kvtwnIvdKG6SQxC77OKjNQq8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422599404&sdata=p1HowPQ0qCqmhjOwFrnGXMUH%2FfrTtwbiUWMaxSeBC%2Fs%3D&reserved=0>,
> finding partisan gerrymandering to violate one or more provisions of the
> U.S. Constitution.
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D104993-26title-3DBreaking-253A-2520Unanimous-25203-2DJudge-2520Court-252C-2520in-2520300-2DPage-2520Opinion-252C-2520Strikes-2520Ohio-2520Congressional-2520Districts-2520as-2520Unconstitutional-2520Partisan-2520Gerrymanders%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3D18WA0hp6nEGbmhlJHK2fDVyBEE_jPm8mc1AfUwHBZKE%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422599404&sdata=IJbh6xcKdV7bPL9aGjXeaW1cdFFldw8GWyBXQjBUgSw%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Posted in redistricting
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D6%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3D7W1mAbg0lyytE-y5mtV7ZitwkZC7A3VVI7zS83Tu65Q%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422609398&sdata=6psSS6xl0ICM88F8LELIJXBpjmpDThEK8LNNn1DbNgM%3D&reserved=0>
> , Supreme Court
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D29%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3DII2TAe2p23tT_sR6OYbq6XZoizd1-p5F505KhJvERbQ%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422609398&sdata=84Va8kapW%2FS%2FA21EKexFLmF0LFR8juVzpfO6W9kbWgw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3DXyPQN6K51s0DqcAe_Or-2egJOtXPVudPW0-TUQ7aOrs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422619391&sdata=p5s0P1kZsUzDAMl8ux2B6TtLtKH6bg525h%2FSoW5g5bM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3DYTsfktukkfMJza5vwXHK0OZEDSewWIKkTD-zN634_q0%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422619391&sdata=3Z4UZkaVTKN9jV07x7FbJxnR1Bp%2F0QhgBquvLOH9Q6k%3D&reserved=0>
>
> <image003.png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3Dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3Dss3wgicILbFNv4YFVPOTV9sV2RebAaQgWAD_xR9F4jE%26s%3DnGbKrB7FBRDozOY6TLOT7TVTy7S3H1eEM2v1ffqS5Pk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422629383&sdata=PvySKaXlwmCaKOzrPizfaUQJCnO4xEiUWS8GROEDYmo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marty Lederman
>
> Georgetown University Law Center
>
> 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> 202-662-9937
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C3ac25b74599d4ea9ec9d08d6d0851988%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636925667422649371&sdata=S04GXStY7lhMlUL5AwwEtZkEOLKYbuIN8SjhIpbr3tU%3D&reserved=0
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Discussion list for con law professors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to conlawprof+unsubscribe at lists.ucla.edu.
> To post to this group, send email to conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu.
>

-- 
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190505/eea07c44/attachment.html>