President Trump urges Republican governors to redraw maps following SCOTUS decision
The Congressional Black Caucus is sounding the alarm over the “legitimacy” of Louisiana’s congressional map following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on May 18 said he was concerned about the unusual additional steps the court took after a blockbuster decision restricting the Voting Rights Act, saying he was concerned about the appearance of partisanship.
The justices this month allowed the April 29 decision to take effect early, increasing the chances that Republicans will enact a new congressional map for Louisiana before the November election.
“My view was that following the rules that always apply in situations like this would be a more neutral way to handle this matter,” Jackson said at a legal conference when asked about his opposition in the case.
He said courts “need to be really, really careful in this environment of dealing with politically charged issues.”
“It’s very important that the public perceives us as neutral and nonpartisan,” Jackson said at an American Law Association meeting. “We know that the only thing the judiciary really has is the trust of the people.”
Under normal rules, the court suspends a decision for 32 days after it is issued, giving the losing party time to request a new hearing.
Judges may shorten that time, but rarely if the losing side objects, as in Voting Rights Act disputes.
Jackson, one of the court’s three liberal justices, was the only justice to publicly disagree with the decision. She wrote in a dissent that the court’s principles “give way to power.”
Justice Samuel Alito said in a written response that this was a “baseless and completely irresponsible accusation.”
Alito said the court’s “thoughtless adherence” to the default rule also contributed to the clock running out, giving the impression of unfairness and that Louisiana would have been forced to use a congressional map that the court ruled unconstitutional.
“Which principle did the court violate?” he asked. “Is it a principle that the 32-day default period in Rule 45.3 should never be shortened even if there are good reasons to do so? Is it a principle that we should never take any action that could be unfairly criticized as partisan?”
Asked about Jackson’s many dissenting opinions during the legal conference, Jackson said they are an important way to show that justices can work with people with different views, present alternative positions, and “and move on.”
