# Supreme Court agrees to hear Wis partisan Gerrymandering case

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [June 19, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404 "2017-06-19T22:52:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404/1 "2017-06-19T22:52:42Z")

</div>

> **[Supreme Court to take Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, delays order to...](https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/supreme-court-to-take-wisconsin-partisan-gerrymandering-case-delays-order/article_46a7511f-f04e-5cd6-8b32-7babe018ee5a.html)**
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide in its next term a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin who argue that state Assembly districts are unconstitutionally

Though they did not rule that the previous divisions be used, so the 2018 elections will most likely be using the current maps.

Brian  
(sorry for the title typo)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404/2 "2017-06-20T00:57:52Z")

</div>

Given that the order setting aside the requirement of re-drawing the maps for the 2018 elections required 5 votes, it’s a pretty good indication that the Court will eventually rule in favor of Wisconsin, and against those challenging the maps.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404/3 "2017-06-20T01:44:22Z")

</div>

> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> Given that the order setting aside the requirement of re-drawing the maps for the 2018 elections required 5 votes, it’s a pretty good indication that the Court will eventually rule in favor of Wisconsin, and against those challenging the maps.

+1

Granting cert took four votes. Setting aside the order took five votes.

Those were not the same votes 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404/4 "2017-06-20T12:27:48Z")

</div>

So … yay democracy, is that it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404/5 "2017-06-20T15:57:08Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> +1
> 
> Granting cert took four votes. Setting aside the order took five votes.
> 
> Those were not the same votes 🙂

Out of curiosity, do they actually announce who granted the cert? Can’t find that anywhere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wis-partisan-gerrymandering-case/789404/6 "2017-06-20T16:21:14Z")

</div>

Here is one law prof’s short [analysis](http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-supreme-court-announced-that-it.html) suggesting that the decision will be divided and mushy but likely to support Wisconsin’s plan. She has a later [post](http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/06/inkblot-is-wrong-meme-for.html) emphasizing the tension between past cases that argued in favor of compactness and the current case, which essentially calls for political balance even at the expense of compact districts.