Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.
Roger Clegg writes for National Review:
By a vote of 8–0 yesterday in Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas is permitted to use total population numbers in its districting, rather than having to use voter population instead. The point of this post is not to comment on the rightness or wrongness of that ruling, but to ask whether — had the shoe been on the other foot — there is any matter in which the Court’s Democrat-appointed justices would have voted against their party’s interests? The answer, of course, is no — and that’s why, if we are to have any hope of pretending to be a country that follows the rule of law, we have to hope that the next justice is appointed by Ted Cruz.
Read more.
