Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Wisconsin

dragonlady

(3,577 posts)

3. It's a procedural issue and doesn't decide the constitutional issue

Reply to Greybnk48 (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 18, 2018, 09:12 PM

Jun 2018

As I understand it, the Court said that the individual plaintiffs who are named in the case didn't show that they have a personal interest in the fairness of the districts as a whole. In other words, they aren't personally affected when the map as a whole is gerrymandered. To have standing, plaintiffs have to have some "skin in the game" in order to file suit about something. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to give them a chance to prove that they do.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Will Supreme Court uphold or toss out Wisconsin's redistricting plan Monday? [View all] TexasTowelie Jun 2018 OP

Unfortunately... wcmagumba Jun 2018 #1

I just read the vote was unanimous to uphold Greybnk48 Jun 2018 #2

It's a procedural issue and doesn't decide the constitutional issue dragonlady Jun 2018 #3

Basically, SCOTUS punted it back to the lower court (in effect) Still In Wisconsin Jun 2018 #4