Latest news with #CommonCause
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is facing renewed scrutiny amid a political standoff in Texas, where Democrats have fled the state to block Republican-backed redistricting maps. Critics argue that the ruling, which bars federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims, has emboldened aggressive map-drawing that diminishes minority representation. Why It Matters The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a check on partisan gerrymandering, leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures. In states such as Texas, where one party controls the map-drawing process, this can significantly shape election outcomes, potentially diluting minority voting power and limiting fair representation in Congress. The current standoff highlights how the decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies, raising broader concerns about the balance of power in American democracy. What To Know The Supreme Court's Role In Rucho, the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that "such claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," arguing that there is no constitutional standard to judge them. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court's refusal to intervene would imperil the foundations of democracy. Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan wrote: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one." Kagan argued that the court's withdrawal from redistricting disputes allowed lawmakers to choose their voters instead of the other way around. The ruling left redistricting battles to state courts and legislatures. While Roberts acknowledged that extreme gerrymandering was "incompatible with democratic principles," he maintained that political remedies, rather than federal judicial intervention, were the proper response. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, Is Gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate voting district boundaries to benefit their party. Here's how it works: Imagine your neighborhood is evenly split between two political parties. Instead of drawing fair, competitive districts, lawmakers can manipulate boundaries so one party's voters are grouped together ("packing") or split apart across multiple districts ("cracking"). This makes it much harder for the other party to win seats—even if they receive as many overall votes. For everyday people, this means your vote might not count as much as it should. A community could be divided in a way that weakens its political voice, leaving voters with leaders who don't reflect their priorities on issues such as education, health care or taxes. In the long run, it can lock in one party's power for years, reducing accountability and limiting real choice at the ballot box. Recent Reaction in Texas On Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Representative Gene Wu from office, citing the Democrat's role in leading fellow lawmakers in a quorum-breaking protest over redistricting. Abbott said in a news release about the petition, "There must be consequences." Wu and dozens of Democrats left for Illinois on Sunday to block a vote on a GOP-backed congressional map that seeks to strengthen Republican control in Washington, arguing that without federal oversight, partisan map-drawing could undermine fair representation for Black and Latino voters. What People Are Saying Texas Governor Greg Abbott, addressing lawmakers who fled the state, said: "I made clear in a formal statement on Sunday, August 3, that if the Texas House Democrats were not in attendance when the House reconvened at 3 p.m. on Monday, August 4, then action would be taken to seek their removal. They have not returned and have not met the quorum requirements. "Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans." State Representative Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement: "Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office." He added: "History will judge this moment." Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned on Tuesday that if Abbott succeeded: "We do not have a democracy anymore. … And if the state of Texas has any law left in it, the Court will immediately dismiss this farce." What Happens Next With federal courts barred from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, any legal challenges to Texas' redistricting maps are expected to play out in state courts. While plaintiffs may invoke state constitutional protections or the federal Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates warn that without federal oversight, states could pursue increasingly aggressive gerrymandering strategies. As Texas moves forward with its redistricting plans, the Rucho decision and the ideological divide it revealed continue to shape the national conversation about voting rights, representation and the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic norms.
India Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court order over Stalin-named government scheme
The Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order that barred the Tamil Nadu government from naming welfare schemes after political leaders, and imposed a Rs 10 lakh cost on the original petitioner, a sitting MP from the opposition in the state.A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai came down heavily on the petition challenging the 'Yours Stalin' scheme, observing that courts should not be used to fight political battles. It called the writ petition filed before the Madras High Court 'an abuse of process of law' and said it 'reeks of political motive.'advertisementThe court noted that several state and central schemes across the country are named after political figures — over 45 in Tamil Nadu alone — and said singling out one party or leader raises questions about the petitioner's intentions. 'Launching schemes in the names of political leaders is a phenomenon followed throughout the country. If the petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of public funds, he could have challenged all schemes,' the court for Tamil Nadu, senior advocate AM Singhvi said more than 20 schemes had been named after former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa (popularly known as Amma), and even central government schemes use political state maintained that the 'Yours Stalin' scheme, launched on June 19, was aimed at addressing gaps in citizen awareness about welfare benefits and eligibility — not glorification of the Chief petitioner's counsel, senior advocate Maninder Singh, contended that government schemes should maintain political neutrality and not include names of politicians. He cited Supreme Court judgments to argue against the inclusion of names and photographs of political the court dismissed the arguments, noting that the Common Cause judgment only restricted certain kinds of political publicity and allowed the use of names and photos of the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, President, and relevant cabinet court also took issue with the petitioner approaching the High Court directly, instead of waiting for a response from the Election Commission to his representation. It said the manner in which the petition was filed — and the sweeping observations made against the ECI — were questionable.'There is no model code of conduct in force in Tamil Nadu. Time and again, we've said political battles must be fought before the electorate, not in court,' the bench top court allowed Tamil Nadu's appeal, quashed the High Court's interim order, and dismissed the original writ petition, with a cost of Rs 10 lakh to be paid to the state. The court directed that the amount be used for the implementation of any welfare scheme for the underprivileged.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
6 days ago
- Politics
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder t old ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June."I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
Indian Express
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tamil Nadu govt can't name welfare schemes after living persons or use party symbols, High Court says
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the Tamil Nadu government from naming any new or rebranded public schemes after living persons. The court also barred the use of portraits of ideological figures or former chief ministers, and any insignia or emblem of the ruling DMK, in government advertisements promoting such schemes. The First Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan, delivered the order while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by AIADMK MP C Ve Shanmugam. The petitioner had sought a ban on the state's use of Chief Minister M K Stalin's name in public outreach programmes such as Ungaludan Stalin (With You, Stalin) and Mudhalvarin Mugavari (Chief Minister's Address), which he claimed violated judicial guidelines and the Election Commission's code. Shanmugam's counsel, senior advocate Vijay Narayan, argued that these government-funded welfare programmes featured 'the name of the incumbent Chief Minister in the nomenclature of the scheme' and included 'pictorial representations/photographs of certain ideological leaders and former chief ministers' affiliated with the ruling party. He further alleged that even the 'party logo/emblem is being printed in the outreach programmes' — a move he said was 'legally impermissible' and in direct contravention of Supreme Court rulings and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014. In its order, the High Court said, 'We are inclined to pass an interim order to the effect that while launching and operating government welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of (DMK) shall not be included.' The court cited previous Supreme Court rulings in Common Cause v Union of India and State of Karnataka v Common Cause, reminding that while publication of a sitting Chief Minister's photograph may be allowed under certain exceptions, 'the use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court'. The court said, 'It would not be permissible to mention the name of the living political personality in the nomenclature of the government scheme. Moreover, using the name of any ruling political party, its insignia/logo/emblem/flag also appears to be prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.' Tamil Nadu Advocate General P S Raman opposed the plea, calling it premature and based on unauthenticated printouts. He contended that the materials cited by the petitioner 'are not government publications at all' and that no such names or symbols were officially being used. Raman sought time to submit affidavits with the actual documents. Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for the DMK, dismissed the petition as 'politically motivated', noting that the petitioner is an Opposition MP and accusing him of attempting to malign the ruling party and its leaders. While issuing its interim directive, the Bench clarified that it had 'not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of the government'. The order is confined to nomenclature and publicity materials. The judges also said that 'pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India…initiating any proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner'. The court directed all respondents, including the Election Commission, the Tamil Nadu government, and the DMK, to file counter affidavits and listed the case for further hearing on August 13, alongside a similar petition filed by another individual.
NDTV
01-08-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Madras High Court Bars Use Of Living Leaders' Names In Government Schemes
Chennai: The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government that while launching and operating welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag shall not be included. The first bench comprising Chief Justice M M Shrivatsava and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the interim order on Thursday on a petition filed by AIADMK MP and advocate Iniyan. In his petition, Shanmugam sought to restrain the state government from introducing/rebranding any scheme in the name of any living personality pending disposal of his Writ Petition. He also sought a direction to the Election Commission of India and the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising to take necessary action against the DMK under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and consequently forbear the state government from using the name "Stalin" in relation to the activities of the scheme emanating from G.O. (Ms) No. 390, Public (Mudhalvarin Mugavari) Department, dated 19.06.2025 and thus render justice. In its order, the bench made it clear that it has not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of the government. The bench said on prima facie considerations, it finds that the prayer for the interim relief has been made on the apprehension that the state is proceeding to launch many welfare schemes on the same line as the advertisement under challenge in this petition. The bench said the Supreme court has issued successive directives from time to time regulating the content of government advertisements. In a clarificatory order passed in a review, the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Vs Common Cause and others permitted certain exceptions to the directive issued in the case of Common Cause Vs Union of India. As per the said order, publication of the photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister was permissible. The use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Minister, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court, the bench added. The bench said it would not be permissible to mention the name of the living political personality in the nomenclature of the government scheme. Moreover, using the name of any ruling political party, its insignia/logo/emblem/flag also appears to be prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India, the bench added. The bench said pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India or the authorities in initiating any proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner. The bench posted to August 13, further hearing of the case.
