Parties seeking to challenge a new law have to make a choice between filing a case in federal court (assuming that they have a federal constitutional claim) and filing in state court.  Unless you have a favorable state Supreme Court, the usual tendency is to file in federal court.  However, it is becoming very clear that, if you are challenging an illegal redistricting plan, you really have to file in state court as the U.S. Supreme Court will not be give any assistance to plaintiffs.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court had what should have been a no-brainer.  When faced with a challenge to the Alabama district lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the three-judge panel issued a lengthy order which included detailed analysis of the evidence and tracked the governing precedent under Section 2.  Under the existing law (and the plain language of Section 2), the Alabama maps were and are illegal.  Under the legal standards governing a stay (which takes into account the merits and the interests of the parties), there was no basis for a stay.  The Supreme Court should have denied the stay and summarily affirmed the judgment.

But that’s not what the Supreme Court did,   By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court issued the stay and put the case on the argument docket for the fall.  Because there is no requirement for opinions on stays, we only know the reasoning of some of the justices.  And what we do know gives a strong hint that the Voting Rights Act is effectively dead. Continue Reading...