Unpacking SCOTUS’s punt on partisan gerrymandering with the lawyer who argued for the plaintiffs.

The Search for the Perfect Gerrymander Case Continues

The Search for the Perfect Gerrymander Case Continues

Law and the Supreme Court justices who interpret it.
June 23 2018 10:00 AM

Voting: Purging, Packing, Cracking, Standing

Analysis of SCOTUS gerrymandering and voter purge decisions with Paul M. Smith, who argued two of the cases.

1400x1400_podcast_amicus_slateplus

To listen to this episode of Amicus, use the player below:

Listen to Amicus via Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Stitcher, or Google Play.

Advertisement

Dahlia Lithwick takes a close look at the two big voting rights cases decided by the Supreme Court earlier this week with Paul Smith who argued for the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin political gerrymander case Gill v. Whitford. On Monday, the court sent Gill back to the lower courts based on the theory that the plaintiffs had no standing. In the other case, Benisek v. Lamone, which involved a Maryland gerrymander, the justices delivered an unsigned opinion sending Benisek back saying it was too soon to decide. And we take a look at the implications of the court’s earlier decision on Ohio voter purges, a case that was also argued by Paul Smith.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate and hosts the podcast Amicus.