"Two months ago, Trump's lawyers called on the court to uphold a new Republican-friendly election map in Texas, arguing that it was partisan gerrymander, not one driven by race. "Plaintiffs bringing a racial-gerrymander claim have the heavy burden to show that race was the predominant factor motivating" how the map was drawn, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said then. The Supreme Court agreed by a 6-3 vote and lifted a judges' order that had blocked the Texas map."
"It is indisputable that impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple," wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. The justices also said it was too late in the election-year calendar for reshuffling the districts again. Undeterred, Trump's lawyers now stake out the near opposite view to support the GOP's attack on the California map which was upheld by the voters in November."
Trump administration lawyers joined California Republicans in urging the Supreme Court to block California's new election map on grounds that a San Joaquin Valley district was drawn to favor Latinos. Two months earlier, the same lawyers asked the Court to uphold a Republican-friendly Texas map, arguing it was a partisan gerrymander rather than race-driven. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said plaintiffs must show race predominated in mapmaking. The Supreme Court lifted a lower-court order against the Texas map in a 6-3 decision, citing presumed official good faith and election-year timing. Sauer called California's redistricting tainted by racial gerrymander and cited mapmaker Paul Mitchell's comments.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]