Divided U.S. Supreme Court looks at Wis. gerrymandering case

Oct. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday on a case examining the drawing of legislative districts in Wisconsin.

The nine justices are deciding on the constitutionality of Wisconsin state House district maps, drawn in 2011 by the state's Republican-majority legislature. Earlier this year a panel of three federal judges by a 2-to-1 vote called the drawing of the districts so blatantly partisan that it denied Democrats a fair opportunity to have its candidates elected.

The court has previously ruled that partisanship in redrawing an election map, often called gerrymandering, can be illegal but it has never defined the ruling party's limit in power. In consideration are a minority party's First Amendment rights and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to be the only Republican-appointed judge who might agree with the four appointees appointed by Democratic presidents.

Kennedy asked no questions of the challengers' lawyers during the one hour of oral arguments in Washington, D.C.

But he questioned the state's lawyers about whether it would be unconstitutional for the state to favor one party over another.

"Suppose [the court] decides this is a First Amendment issue, not an equal-protection issue. Would that change the analysis?" Kennedy asked.

They answered that it would, but denied this challenge fit that framework.

The challenger's lawyer, Paul M. Smith, told the justices that upholding Wisconsin's redistricting plan would create "a festival of copycat gerrymandering the likes of which this country's never seen."

He said there could be virtually no competition in U.S. elections in much of the country after 2020 without restraints.

"This is really the last opportunity," Smith declared. "If you don't do it, it's locked up."

States are required to draw new legislative and congressional districts after each decade's U.S. census.

Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin warned the justices could upend the traditional redistricting process with courts drawing lines based on computer models.

"Plaintiffs are asking this court to lead a redistricting revolution based on their social-science claims," Tseytlin said. "You would have federal courts engaging in a battle of the hypothetical experts."

Justice Elena Kagan noted that computer models can provide highly detailed analysis of districts and various potential maps. "This is not the kind of hypothetical ... where you guess and then you guess again," she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned courts taking over the process of redistricting from elected officials. He said this would lead the public to question "status and integrity of decisions of this court."

"The intelligent man on the street is going to say, 'That's a bunch of baloney. It must be because the Supreme Court favored Democrats or Republicans,'" Roberts said. "That's going to cause a very serious harm to the status ... of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country."

Roberts said some will see the data as "sociological gobbedlygook."

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger watched the proceedings.

"I'm a Republican, but this is not a Republican or Democratic issue," Schwarzenegger told reporters outside the courthouse after the sessions. He opposes legislators drawing the maps.