Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Michigan won’t have to redraw its gerrymandered maps

Michigan won’t have to redraw its gerrymandered maps

The Supreme Court, in light of its decision in June to avoid partisan gerrymander disputes, overturned a lower federal court ruling that would have required Michigan to redraw its district lines.

Drew Angerer/Getty Photos

Michigan won't have to redraw its gerrymandered congressional and state district maps, as a federal court had required in an April ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the ruling in a one-sentence order, which was expected in light of the justice's 5-4 decision in June that prohibited federal courts from hearing cases challenging legislative boundaries on the grounds they were drawn to favor one political party over another, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.

In Michigan's case, the Republicans had drawn the districts to cement their hold on the state and congressional districts.


Earlier this month, the court threw out a similar lower court ruling related to Ohio's map, which was ordered to be redrawn after the court found the Republican-drawn map was designed to dilute Democratic votes.

The June ruling by the high court was in cases involving a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina and a Democratic drawing of lines in Maryland.

Since that ruling, some activists have started looking to the state courts for relief from gerrymandering under the constitutions of those states, while others have turned to the state legislatures. The voters in Michigan decided in a referendum last year to take redistricting power away from the Legislature and give it to a new citizen commission.

Read More

Entrance Sign at the University of Florida

Universities are embracing “institutional neutrality,” but at places like the University of Florida it’s becoming a tool to silence faculty and erode academic freedom.

Getty Images, Bryan Pollard

When Insisting on “Neutrality” Becomes a Gag Order

Universities across the country are adopting policies under the banner of “institutional neutrality,” which, at face value, sounds entirely reasonable. A university’s official voice should remain measured, cautious, and focused on its core mission regardless of which elected officials are in office. But two very different interpretations of institutional neutrality are emerging.

At places like the University of Wisconsin – Madison and Harvard, neutrality is applied narrowly and traditionally: the institution itself refrains from partisan political statements, while faculty leaders and scholars remain free to speak in their professional and civic capacities. Elsewhere, the same term is being applied far more aggressively — not to restrain institutions, but to silence individuals.

Keep ReadingShow less