<x-flowed>rick


yes that is my view. prediction is a a bit strong.  but certainly that is the way the discussion seemed to go.


b
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Rick Hasen wrote:

So, from my reading of the second hand reports, it sounds like the
Justices were leaning in the following directions:

1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection,
First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) ---apparently
this leaves Vieth in place, because it does not appear that Justice
Kennedy was signalling he's ready to vote for nonjusticiablity
2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person,
one vote because of the failure to use updated census data
3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice
Kennedy's vote)
4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section
2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or
influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority
to affirmatively reject that stand).

Is is how those who attend the oral argument see things as going?
Rick

 -- Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

</x-flowed>