Gill v. Whitford (16-1161)

argument 16-1161

Gill v. Whitford

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question about jurisdiction in Gill v. Whitford?

John G. Roberts 0:00

You'll hear argument first this morning in case sixteen eleven sixty one, Gill versus Whitford. Satelin.

Paul D. Clement 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, it may it please the court. This court has never uncovered judicially manageable standards for determining when politicians have acted too politically in drawing district lines. Plaintiff social science metrics, composed of statewide vote to seat ratios and hypothetical projections, do not solve any of these problems. Instead, they would merely shift districting from elected public officials to federal courts, who would decide the fate of maps based upon battles of the Now, as a threshold matter, this Court should hold that federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain statewide political gerrymandering challenges, leaving for another day the question of

Unknown 0:50

I think it's true that there is no case Um that directly helps respondents very strongly on the standing issue. You have a a strong argument there. But suppose The court And you just have to assume we won't know exactly the parameters of it. uh d decided uh that this is a first amendment issue. Not an equal protection issue. Would that change the calculus so that if you're In one part of the state, uh you have a First Amendment interest in having your party strong or the other party weak.

Paul D. Clement 1:23

Uh n no it wouldn't, Your Honor. And I think the reason for that is even if it's a First Amendment issue, it's still grounded in the right to vote. In the in our country's single district election system, folks only vote in their own district. Uh for example, you might have some vague interest in the party that you associate with having more members in Congress, for example, like a Wisconsin Republican might want more Texas Republicans in Congress. But no one would say that you have a First Amendment or a First Fourteenth Amendment right in that sort of circ circumstance to challenge some Texas law that you would, for example, argue led to less Republicans from Texas coming to the United States. Well, but I

John G. Roberts 2:01

I think the argument is pretty straightforward, which you in your district have a right of association and you want to exercise that right of association with other people elsewhere in the state. And if you can't challenge the districting throughout the State, then your claim seems to be uh y th there is no way for you to raise your claim.

Unknown 2:22

This of course This of course confines it to the state and eliminates the problem of out of state.

Paul D. Clement 2:31

Uh well, Your Honor, I don't think it would solve the interstate problem because of course the structural relationship of, for example, Mr. Mm

Unknown 2:38

let's let's assume that it does.

Paul D. Clement 2:40

Uh well well, Your Honor, uh I still think that this court should be very careful about uh enacting that kind of doctrine. As we know, um race and politics are often correlated in this country. So political gerrymandering claims and racially gerrymandering claims, even if they're ultimately grounded in a different constitutional amendment, will often be raised together. And it cannot be possibly be the case that if there is a showing that the map drawer turned on the racial screen, the person is limited to a single district claim. But if that same map drawer turned on the political screen, then the plaintiff would get access to the holy grail of a statewide claim on based on what's the question. I'm not sure if you're not going to be able to do that.

Samuel A. Alito 3:36

This bears a certain resemblance because the effort here intentionally was to create as many Republican districts. So is Max Republican It doesn't it have the same problem that Max Black did?

Paul D. Clement 3:51

Well, Your Honor, um that turns to the issue of judiciability, and I do not think that raises the same problems, because of course politics is not a suspect classification like race. And I think the easiest way to see this is to uh take a look at a chart that plaintiff's own expert um created and that's available on supplemental appendix two hundred and thirty five. This is plain uh plaintiff's expert studied maps from thirty years and he identified the 17 worst of the worst maps.