Major Partisan Gerrymandering Case In Michigan Headed To Trial

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 03: Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington... WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 03: Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Olivier Douliery/Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
February 4, 2019 1:55 p.m.

A lawsuit alleging that Michigan’s GOP-controlled legislature engaged in partisan gerrymandering is heading to trial Tuesday after a panel of federal judges rejected efforts by Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and plaintiffs to settle the case.

This development sets up an impending face-off between Benson and Republicans in the legislature that neither side wanted. The case could end with new state legislative maps being drawn ahead of the 2020 election cycle.

A three-judge panel issued a flurry of rulings Friday opposing Benson’s proposal to enter into a consent decree with the plaintiffs in the suit, which was brought by the League of Women Voters and several local Democratic voters. Benson said that rather than waste additional state funds on the case and potentially overhaul the entire map, it would be less disruptive to reconfigure 11 state House seats that represented the most egregious GOP-friendly gerrymanders.

The panel rejected the proposal, ruling that the secretary of state lacks standing to offer a settlement. Only the Michigan legislature has jurisdiction over legislative districts under the state constitution, the judges said.

Newsletters
Get TPM in your inbox, twice weekly.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

“The court has ruled, and I respect its decision,” Benson said in a Friday statement obtained by the Detroit Free Press. “As the state’s chief election officer, I will continue efforts to resolve this lawsuit in the best interests of all voters and in compliance with constitutional requirements.”

That ruling was a win for Michigan Republican lawmakers, whose attorneys accused Benson of entering into a “secret” deal with Democratic plaintiffs.

But not all of Friday’s rulings were positive for the state GOP. Republicans had asked that the case be delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court hears two other federal gerrymandering cases out of Maryland and North Carolina this spring. The panel of judges denied that request, saying the parties “failed to articulate sufficiently compelling justifications.”

GOP lawmakers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and impose a delay. The parties had an 11 a.m. Monday deadline to file submissions to the court on that front.

Benson is also trying to halt Republican efforts to have her removed as the defendant in the case.

In a Monday court filing, Benson’s office said that removing her on the eve of trial would throw the proceedings into disarray and “severely prejudice the Secretary’s ability to defend her interests as the chief elections officer.”

Former Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson had defended the fairness of the maps when the case was brought in 2017.

In emails that surfaced in discovery, GOP consultants openly bragged about the “solid 9-5 [congressional] delegation” the maps created and joked about relegating “Dem garbage” to four southeastern Michigan districts.

Whatever happens with the case, this is the last time the state legislature will have a say in how districts are drawn. Last November, Michigan voters passed a constitutional amendment creating an independent citizens commission that will assume control of the map-drawing process from 2021 onward.

Latest Muckraker
Comments are now Members-Only

Non-members are still able to read comments, but will no longer be able to participate. To join the conversation, sign up now and get:

30% Off Annual Prime Membership

TPM strives to build as inclusive a community as financially possible. We offer FREE memberships to those experiencing financial hardship and FREE memberships for students.

View all options
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: