Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Usa. Corte Suprema. Continua a surrogare la politica conflittuale.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-10-08.

Supreme Court

Dopo decenni nei quali la Suprema Corte era in balia dei liberal socialisti, che sentenziavamo secondo ideologia e nell’interesse del partito democratico, infischiandosene allegramente della costituzione e delle leggi, adesso fa specie vedere una Suprema Corte che sentenzi in modo legale.

* * * * * * *

Lunedì la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti ha respinto il ricorso di un ex deputato repubblicano contro la mappa dei distretti della Camera dei Rappresentanti della Pennsylvania, adottata dalla Corte suprema dello Stato al posto di quella elaborata dai legislatori repubblicani. Il caso della Carolina del Nord, come quello della Pennsylvania, riguarda una mappa disegnata da una legislatura a guida repubblicana che l’alta corte statale ha respinto in favore di un piano di riorganizzazione diverso, approvato dalla magistratura. A marzo la Corte Suprema ha rifiutato di impedire che le mappe approvate dalla Corte in entrambi gli Stati venissero utilizzate per le primarie e per le elezioni di metà mandato del 9 novembre, che determineranno se i Democratici manterranno il controllo della Camera degli Stati Uniti.

La Corte ha una maggioranza di 6-3 conservatori. I giudici conservatori Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas e Neil Gorsuch hanno dissentito dall’azione riguardante la Carolina del Nord. Nella maggior parte degli Stati, la riorganizzazione dei distretti è effettuata dal partito al potere, il che può portare alla manipolazione delle mappe per ottenere vantaggi di parte. Nel 2019 la Corte Suprema ha impedito ai giudici federali di limitare questa pratica, chiamata gerrymandering partitico.

I casi riguardano una teoria legale un tempo marginale, chiamata dottrina della legislatura statale indipendente, che sta guadagnando terreno nei circoli legali conservatori e che, se accettata, aumenterebbe enormemente il potere dei politici sulle elezioni. Secondo questa dottrina, la Costituzione degli Stati Uniti conferisce alle legislature, e non ai tribunali statali o ad altri enti, l’autorità sulle regole elettorali, compreso il disegno dei distretti elettorali. La dottrina si basa in parte sul linguaggio della Costituzione che afferma che i tempi, i luoghi e le modalità delle elezioni federali sono prescritti in ogni Stato dalla sua legislatura. I pareri di Kavanaugh e Alito hanno indicato che la Corte ha i quattro voti necessari per prendere in considerazione la dottrina ed emettere una sentenza che potenzialmente limita l’autorità dei tribunali statali di rivedere le regole elettorali federali stabilite dalle legislature statali prima delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi del 2024.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Republican former congressman’s challenge to a map charting Pennsylvania’s U.S. House of Representatives districts that the state’s highest court adopted in place of one drawn up by Republican lawmakers. The North Carolina case, like the Pennsylvania one, involves a map drawn by a Republican-led legislature that a state high court rejected in favor of a different, judicially endorsed redistricting plan. The Supreme Court in March declined to prevent the court-endorsed maps in both states from being used in primaries and the upcoming the Nov. 9 midterm elections, which will determine if Democrats retain control of the U.S. House»

«The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the action concerning North Carolina. In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain. The Supreme Court in 2019 barred federal judges from curbing the practice, called partisan gerrymandering»

«The cases touch upon a once-marginal legal theory called the “independent state legislature doctrine” that is gaining traction in conservative legal circles and, if accepted, would vastly increase the power of politicians over elections. Under that doctrine, the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts or other entities, authority over election rules including the drawing of electoral districts. The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution stating that the times, places and manner of federal elections “hall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. The opinions by Kavanaugh and Alito indicated that the court has the four votes needed to take up the doctrine and issue a ruling potentially limiting state court authority to review federal election rules set by state legislatures ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election»

* * * * * * *


U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Pennsylvania electoral map

Washington, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Republican former congressman’s challenge to a map charting Pennsylvania’s U.S. House of Representatives districts that the state’s highest court adopted in place of one drawn up by Republican lawmakers.

The justices declined to hear an appeal of a ruling by Pennsylvania’s top court endorsing a map backed by a group of Democratic voters after Democratic Governor Tom Wolf vetoed a plan passed by the majority-Republican state legislature.

Pennsylvania has 17 House districts – down one after the state lost population in the most recent national census done in 2020.

The appeal of the February ruling was brought by former U.S. Representative Ryan Costello, who argued that the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of state courts to interfere with maps or rules adopted by state legislatures for federal elections.

Costello, who served in the House from 2015 to 2019, asked that the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case alongside a similar one out of North Carolina it agreed in June to hear to “rein in the state judiciaries’ unconstitutional meddling in congressional redistricting decisions.”

The North Carolina case, like the Pennsylvania one, involves a map drawn by a Republican-led legislature that a state high court rejected in favor of a different, judicially endorsed redistricting plan.

The Supreme Court in March declined to prevent the court-endorsed maps in both states from being used in primaries and the upcoming the Nov. 9 midterm elections, which will determine if Democrats retain control of the U.S. House.

* * * * * * *


U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Republicans in electoral map disputes

Washington, March 7 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let North Carolina and Pennsylvania use electoral maps approved by state courts to replace ones deemed to have given Republicans unfair advantages, improving Democratic chances of retaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November.

The justices denied Republican requests to put on hold lower court rulings that adopted court-drawn boundaries for North Carolina’s 14 House districts and Pennsylvania’s 17 House districts to replace electoral maps devised by Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states.

Republicans are seeking to regain control of the House, narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden’s fellow Democrats, in the Nov. 8 midterm elections. Party primaries in Pennsylvania and North Carolina are set for May 17.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the action concerning North Carolina.

The North Carolina and Pennsylvania disputes are among the numerous court battles nationwide over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes measured in a national census, last taken in 2020.

In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain. The Supreme Court in 2019 barred federal judges from curbing the practice, called partisan gerrymandering.

                         LEGAL DOCTRINE

The cases touch upon a once-marginal legal theory called the “independent state legislature doctrine” that is gaining traction in conservative legal circles and, if accepted, would vastly increase the power of politicians over elections. Under that doctrine, the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts or other entities, authority over election rules including the drawing of electoral districts.

The North Carolina Republican lawmakers challenging the court-drawn map placed the theory front and center, writing in a court filing: “The North Carolina courts have usurped (the legislature’s) constitutional authority.”

Alito said the justices should have blocked the court-drawn map.

“This case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections,” Alito wrote.

The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution stating that the “times, places and manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated sympathy toward the views of the dissenters but said it was too close to the election to block the maps. But Kavanaugh added that the court should take up the underlying legal issue in due course.

The opinions by Kavanaugh and Alito indicated that the court has the four votes needed to take up the doctrine and issue a ruling potentially limiting state court authority to review federal election rules set by state legislatures ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

It remains unclear if a majority of the justices would embrace such a ruling.

“Today’s orders are temporary good news, but statements from four of the justices are ominous for the ability of state courts to uphold the right to vote under state constitutions,” voting rights expert Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, wrote on Twitter.

Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, a group defending the state’s new districts, called Monday’s action a victory.

“We’re pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the legislative defendants’ shameless attempt to impose their gerrymandered congressional map upon North Carolina,” Phillips said.

The North Carolina Supreme Court, acting after Democratic voters and an environmental group challenged the Republican-drawn map, struck it down, concluding it was intentionally biased against Democrats, diluting their “fundamental right to equal voting power” in violation of the state constitution’s free elections and freedom of assembly provisions, among others.

A lower state court then rejected a redrawn map submitted by the legislature, instead adopting a new map drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. According to some redistricting analysts, the court-approved map includes seven districts likely to favor Republicans, six likely to favor Democrats and one competitive seat.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf vetoed a map approved by the legislature, saying the configuration of House districts gave Republicans an unfair advantage.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, acting on a lawsuit filed by Democratic voters, approved a new map that eliminated one Republican-leaning district approved by the legislature and, Republicans have argued, created a statewide map advantageous to Democrats.

Pubblicità