There was one case before the Supreme Court that stood out above all the rest.
It had the ability to reshape American politics for a generation.
And with this decision, Brett Kavanaugh just drove the final nail in the coffin of Nancy Pelosi’s career.
During this term, the Supreme Court settled once-and-for-all the question of so-called “partisan gerrymandering.”
This traditional political practice is when state legislatures redraw district maps for state House and Congressional seats every ten years in accordance with the census.
Politicians going back to George Washington have accused their political opponents of redrawing the districts to favor their party over another.
After historic Republican gains in the 2010 midterm elections led them to control the majority of state legislatures and governor mansions, the Democrats knew they were in trouble.
So, what the left did was begin to sue, claiming Republicans had engaged in unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
They would handpick left-wing judges to handle these cases and the judge – usually an Obama appointee – would step in and throw out the GOP map and have one redrawn that would rig the election in the Democrats favor.
But now, by a five to four vote that split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ended that practice once and for all.
In Rucho v Common Cause, et al., the Supreme Court examined two of the most extreme partisan gerrymandering cases in America – the North Carolina map drawn by the Republicans and the Democrat-drawn state House and Congressional district map in Maryland.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion for the court and argued that gerrymandering was a political question that the courts were ill-equipped to solve.
Roberts wrote, “…plaintiffs inevitably ask the courts to make their own political judgment about how much representation particular political parties deserve— based on the votes of their supporters—and to rearrange the challenged districts to achieve that end. But federal courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so.”
The Chief Justice argued that there was legal standard of “fairness” that the court could turn in trying to figure out what a political party’s “fair share” of seats in the state legislature or Congress actually are.
“There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral. Any judicial decision on what is “fair” in this context would be an “unmoored determination” of the sort characteristic of a political question beyond the competence of the federal courts,” Robert declared.
This case has immediate impacts for the 2020 elections.
Democrats sued to get the maps in Ohio and Michigan thrown out so judges could order more Democrat-friendly maps drawn ahead of the next election.
Those cases are now dead.
And the GOP-drawn maps in both states will stand.
That could play a major role in determining control of Congress.
With Donald Trump leading the GOP at the top of the ballot in 2020, the party holds a decent chance of winning back the districts Trump carried in 2016 but lost in 2018.
That would be enough for the GOP to reclaim the House majority.
Democrats were counting on the courts to build a buffer by handing them favorable maps in key states that would benefit the Democrat candidates.
That all went up in smoke.
And if Republicans do reclaim the House, political experts believe Nancy Pelosi will retire – or be forced to retire by her caucus – if Democrats fall to the minority.
Conservative Revival will continue to keep you up to date on any new developments in the 2020 election.