New districts in 2018 unlikely as SCOTUS continues weighing Wisconsin gerrymandering suit


The court may yet issue a decision that strikes down the district lines Republican state legislators drew almost seven years ago. But the issue, as far as this year’s elections are concerned, is that time is running out. > Wisconsin Public Radio

Where redistricting fights stand across the country


Here’s your guide to the state of redistricting in six key states. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide three major cases this term – including Wisconsin’s – that could determine how districts are drawn for the next decade. > Oregon Public Broadcasting

Has the tide turned against partisan gerrymandering?


Across the nation, judges are discovering that if you look for it, partisan gerrymandering actually is all around you. Courts have historically been reluctant to strike down redistricting plans on the basis of political bias—unwilling to appear to be favoring one party. But recent developments suggest they might be building a tolerance for it. > The Atlantic

SCOTUS temporarily blocks NC gerrymandering ruling


The Supreme Court intervened Thursday to temporarily freeze a lower court ruling against gerrymandered North Carolina congressional districts, likely meaning the current congressional map will remain in place through the November midterms. > Slate

Ex-senators denounce gerrymandering at Lodi Fair Elections Project presentation


Two former state senators — one Republican, one Democrat — spoke at Lodi High School Wednesday about the realities of Wisconsin gerrymandering: “We believe gerrymandering is very bad for democracy. It destroys the value of your vote.” >

Portage Daily Register

The case for math, not ‘gobbledygook,’ in judging partisan voting maps


In October, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, Chief Justice John Roberts registered an objection. There was math in the case, he said, and not only was it complicated, it might actually be “sociological gobbledygook.” Others see it differently. > New York Times