In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The opinion resolved disputes originating in North Carolina and Maryland, in the cases of Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.
In a 5-4 decision on redistricting, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Virginia House of Delegates. The Court found that the House of Delegates lacked standing to represent the state\'s or its own interests. The case is Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill.
Ruling on the plaintiffs\' emergency motion, a U.S. District Judge ordered that individuals flagged for potential citizenship issues by a Georgia database can still vote in the midterms. The judge\'s order set forth specific ways these indivduals can vote. The case is Georgia Coalition for the People\'s Agenda v. Kemp.
A divided panel of Sixth Circuit judges granted the plaintiffs\' emergency motion, ruling that county boards of elections must count provisional ballots cast by voters who had been purged from the voter rolls for not voting during a 6-year period. The decision temporarily blocks a lower court ruling that the purges were legal. The state indicated that it will not appeal the Sixth Circuit decision. The case is Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted.
Ruling on forms used by the state of Ohio to remove inactive voters from the voter rolls, U.S. District Judge George Smith found one minor violation of the National Voter Registration Act, but otherwise ruled that the forms did not violate federal law. The case is Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.