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