Thread by @DavidPepper

THREAD -- A quick review of what the US Supreme Court said in its most recent case on partisan gerrymandering.

The Court in Rucho (in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts) said that federal courts had no basis to address claims of partisan gerrymandering.

BUT...

1/

"Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering. Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts. In 2015, the Sup Court of Florida struck..."

2/

..."Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for STATE courts to apply." (my emphasis).

"Indeed, numerous other States are restricting partisan considerations in districting through legislation...."

3/

"...Other States have mandated at least some of the traditional districting criteria for their mapmakers. Some have outright prohibited partisan favoritism in redistricting..."The Court then cited language in Florida, Iowa, Missouri and Delaware that 'No apportionment plan.."

4/

...or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent."

Sound familiar, Ohio?

So the Roberts court not only credited as legitimate the very types of language added to the Ohio Constitution, it made clear that this..

...type of reform , in state Constitutions, was for "STATE courts to apply."

So the entire Ohio GOP effort to evade Ohio Supreme Court rulings they don't like not only is an affront to Ohio's rule of law, it ignores the most applicable..

...precedent, only three years ago, from the US Supreme Court.

Whether the forum of a dispute is in state court or (as they are attempting) a federal court, it is the state supreme court's application and interpretation of state law that controls.

END