The U.S. Supreme Court was expected to make a defining decision on extreme partisan gerrymandering this term. It took up two cases, one from Wisconsin, and the other from Maryland. But, in unanimous decisions, the court avoided the key constitutional question at stake in these cases: How much politics is too much when determining voting districts? Instead, it ruled on technicalities.

In the main opinion of the Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, the court ruled that plaintiffs were unable to prove standing or harm by the state’s redistricting plan and kicked the case back down to a three-judge panel in district court for further proceedings., writes Linday Lazarski of WHYY for the Philadelphia Business Journal.

[uam_ad id=”54865″]

In the main opinion of the Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, the court ruled that plaintiffs were unable to prove standing or harm by the state’s redistricting plan and kicked the case back down to a three-judge panel in district court for further proceedings.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “a plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must first demonstrate that he has standing to do so, including that he has ‘a personal stake in the outcome,’ distinct from a ‘generally available grievance about government.’” Roberts wrote the plaintiffs never followed up with “requisite proof” of harm, but gave them another chance at proving standing in the lower court.

To read the complete story click here.

[uam_ad id=”54875″]