Gill v. Whitford — Court Opinions to Voters: Here's How You Win

In Wisconsin gerrymandering case, voters
have to wait while Republicans rampage.
Waiting image by Edward Hopper.

The United States Supreme Court did more than provide voters with a roadmap back to the Court in Gill v. Whitford, Wisconsin's gerrymandering case.

The four liberal judges' concurring opinion built a legal yellow-brick road and a fast-track for Wisconsin voters to prevail against the Republican state-election riggers, going so far as to suggest evidence, argument, type of plaintiff and harm claims that would presumably snag at least Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote.

That's a pretty good result from an order to remand to lower court that has Republicans pretending to ballyhoo.

The three-judge, lower-court panel, except for Federalist Society-linked, rightwing and corrupt Judge William Griesbach, will likely not be amused by Republican stalling this time around.

Wisconsin Republicans are lying about the no-decision, passing Roberts' opinion off as an unanimous decision on the merits, which it definitely is not, an indisputable fact that everyone except for Gov. Scott Walker (R) and Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) understands.

Gill v. Whitford is not a "reversal," as Schimel pretends. It's a do-over.

Concludes Chief Judge John Roberts: "The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is  remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," (p.22).

Further proceedings in this case means litigation at the three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit jurisdiction, then directly back to United States Supreme Court.

Roberts went out of his way not to dismiss the claims, calling the claims "unsettled," (p.21) and unresolved. Kennedy likely forced this most-significant of concessions by Roberts. The two Soviet-minded justices, Thomas and Gorsuch, write in a concurring opinion they want the case dismissed.

Though Roberts frustrates voting rights by dismissing the argument that engineering one-party control of the legislature through gerrymandering is a mere "generalized" claim not sufficient for the Court to hear and decide, a ridiculous position, the take-away from Gill v. Whitford is obvious.

Roberts wants to decide the case, and wants a nationwide, precedent-setting (and narrow) remedy for voters getting the shaft on gerrymandering by craven state politicians.

Frustrating for sure, because now pro-democracy forces have to wait and Republican-appointed justices' forced a punt on a case they should have decided now.

But from a Supreme Court that is hostile to Due Process claims, perverse on the First Amendment and corrupted for Republican interests on political cases, there is ample reason in the opinions for voters to celebrate: A coming victory in a year or two assuming Anthony Kennedy does not retire.