When the Supreme Court on Oct. 3 hears the Wisconsin redistricting case, the legal conflict will pit a relatively narrow argument that is based on Court precedents against a broader-based approach based on constitutional history and good-government arguments. The clash also will likely explore the practicality of the reformers’ proposed mathematical remedy that has been designed by a political science scholar, which was approved by the three-judge federal court that earlier this year overturned the Wisconsin redistricting plans.
That prospect emerges from a reading of the roughly 50 “amicus” briefs that have been filed on behalf of the two sides. Although Supreme Court debates—and rulings—can move in unexpected directions, the written arguments typically foreshadow the courtroom exchange and the principles that the Justices ultimately will cite. CONT.
Richard E. Cohen, Cook Political Report