Illinois League of Women Voters May Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Find that First Amendment Bars Gerrymandering

After the 2010 census, the Illinois legislature drew new boundaries for U.S. House and legislative districts. The Democratic Party controls both houses of the legislature and holds the Governor’s chair, so the plan, not surprisingly, was drawn to maximize advantages for Democrats. The Illinois League of Women Voters then filed a lawsuit, alleging that the First Amendment bars using partisan considerations when redistricting is carried out. The case, League of Women Voters v Quinn, lost on October 28 in a 3-judge U.S. District Court. Here is the 9-page opinion. The case only deals with legislative redistricting, not U.S. House redistricting.

Now the League is considering whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court several times has rejected challenges to gerrymandering, but those past decisions were based on the 14th amendment. The League’s case instead is based on the First Amendment. Here is the League’s brief in U.S. District Court, which tried to persuade the U.S. District Court to focus on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence in Vieth v Jubelirer, in which Kennedy hinted that while he would not invalidate Pennsylvania’s gerrymander in that case, that the First Amendment might someday compel a finding that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

The 3-judge U.S. District Court in Illinois did not even discuss Vieth, except in the second-to-last paragraph of the opinion.


Comments

Illinois League of Women Voters May Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Find that First Amendment Bars Gerrymandering — 8 Comments

  1. For any brain dead folks living in a hole since 4 July 1776 —

    The ANTI-Democracy gerrymander CRISIS in the U.S.A. is N-O-W — this second and every second.

    1/2 votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 CONTROL.

    Much worse primary math in the rigged gerrymander districts — about 10-15 percent REAL minority rule by EVIL robot party hack gangs — aka left/right special interest gangs.

    See also the Federalist regarding the Republican Form of Government in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const. Art. IV, Sec. IV —

    Clue — RFG is NOT about having an EVIL minority rule monarchy/oligarchy in control of ANY State — leaving guess what ???

    SCOTUS is full of math M-O-R-O-N-S due in part to having lots of math MORON profs in law schools filing JUNK math amicus briefs in gerrymander cases.

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — before it is too late.

    Lots of Stalin/Hitler types ready to come out of their holes under rocks.

  2. I don’t think it makes sense Constitutionally, but neither does Citizens United, in my opinion. It’s clever, at least, that they’re turning the language of Citizens United on its head.

    If you read the decision in the U.S. District Court, they quote Citizens United, which says the government can’t “seek to restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others.”

  3. See Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book I, *Of Corporations*.

    CU = one more brain dead SCOTUS piece of JUNK — to be over-ruled after enough JUNK accumulates about corporations and ALL the fictions involved.

  4. See the book Sources of Our Liberties edited by Richard L. Perry (1959) about Amdts 1-8.

    Good luck in finding ONE word about gerrymanders having ANY thing to do with the 1st Amdt — or for that matter the 1st Amdt and ballot access.

    The SCOTUS MORONS have really done a number about mystifying the entire U.S.A. Constitution – esp. since about 1960.

  5. The conclusion of the opinion:

    “In the end, we have no doubt that LWV thinks it is on the cutting edge of redistricting law, presenting a novel legal theory based on a creative and nuanced reading of recent Supreme Court cases. We read those cases much differently. Therefore, LWV’s Amended Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.”

  6. Jim,

    Right.

    The only point I’d make is that Citizens United was as much as a stretch as the case the LWV is making, and on pretty similar reasoning.

    Restricting how you put money into a race doesn’t restrict your right of speech either. Corporations have for years been funelling money into campaigns through PACs, so how does the fact that they can’t contribute directly make it an abridgment of speech? Second, anyone can decide to form a private company, and use the private company as a means to contribute to campaigns, and requiring that, instead of contributing to a public corporation doesn’t abridge speech either.

    The judge’s reasoning, in my view, speaks against the core of the Citizens United decision. Neither gerrymandering, nor limiting the means by which contributions are made, restrict speech directly.

    And you argue one restricts speech “indirectly”, you can argue for the other.

  7. #7 I was mainly noting the language of the conclusion, which I found amusing.

    The LWV claim is that by taking into account partisan data, Illinois is assigning voters to districts based on their political beliefs, and restricting their opportunity to hear certain opinions expressed. If you were a rabid Republican and assigned to a “competitive” district, you would be subjected to mealy mouth milquetoast moderates pandering to swing voters, with nary a word about dismembering the demonic Democrats. The government by attempting to level the playing field is favoring certain speech and disfavoring other.

    The LWV particularly relies on Arizona Free Enterprise where the Supreme Court overturned an Arizona law that provided additional public funding for candidates who faced an opponent who raised lots of private contributions, and said that the government didn’t have any business trying to level the playing field.

    An irony is that in other States, the LWV has advocated for using political data in creation of “competitive” districts. I also suspect that the LWV opposed the Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.