| Gill v. Whitford: The Supreme Court and Partisan Redistricting |
|
Jonathan L. Entin J.D., David L. Brennan Professor Emeritus of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science |
Friday February 23, 2018
12:30-1:30 p.m.
***Alternate Location: The Baker-Nord Center, Room 206, Clark Hall, 11130 Bellflower Road, Cleveland, OH 44106***
Case Western Reserve University
Dear Colleagues:
For decades the federal courts rejected claims that districts were unconstitutionally partisan. But in November of 2016 a federal district court invalidated Wisconsin’s map. On October 3, the Supreme Court heard the case, Gill v. Whitford, on direct appeal. Arnold Schwarznegger, the one-time moderate Republican Governor of California and sponsor of the website Terminate Gerrymandering, was among celebrities in attendance.
Most political scientists do not think gerrymandering is the main cause of the heightened polarization that has separated voters and politicians into versions of warring camps. But it surely hasn’t helped, and it can enable a minority to win elections, again and again. That doesn’t sound democratic, even in a “constitutional republic” like the United States.
But there are reasons why the Court has refused to overturn past maps on grounds of partisan bias. For example, how can one define a standard to “distinguish ordinary, acceptable politicking from conduct that rises to the level of unconstitutional discrimination against voters based on their political views”? Can the bias of any map be measured in a way that a court could consider objective? Must intent to discriminate be shown, and how? As Chief Justice Roberts remarked, if the Court overturns one plan it could be overwhelmed by new cases, and accused of partisanship however it rules. But is the Court’s reputation as important as the election system’s? Join us as Professor Entin discusses the arguments, prospects, and possible consequences.
All best regards,
Joe White
Luxenberg Family Professor of Public Policy and Director, Center for Policy Studies
About Our Guest
Jonathan Entin has taught Constitutional Law; Administrative Law; Courts, Public Policy and Social Change; and a Supreme Court Seminar. Before joining the faculty in 1984, he clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (when she was on the U.S. Court of Appeals) and practiced in Washington with Steptoe & Johnson. The recipient of several teaching awards and a former co-editor of the Journal of Legal Education, he is at work on a book about equal protection. Among his recent publications are “Getting What You Pay For: Judicial Compensation and Judicial Independence,” Utah Law Review (2011) and “Responding to Political Corruption: Some Institutional Considerations,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (2011).
Where We Meet
The Friday Public Affairs Lunch convenes each Friday when classes are in session, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Our programs are open to all and no registration is required. This week’s venue is on the second floor of Clark Hall in Room 206. Please enter Clark Hall by walking down the walkway to the right, on the west side of the building. The entrance is on the on the ground floor of the building. You can take the stairway or the elevator to the second floor.
Parking Possibilities
We regret that there is no free parking nearby. Participants who normally park in the lot off East Boulevard, under Severance Hall, could do so. Then, after exiting at the Thwing Center or the elevator into the Tinkham Veale University Center, they could follow the walkway between TVUC and Thwing, heading east. After going between Mather House and Mather Dance, they could turn left on the walkway, immediately right so Haydn Hall is on their right, and follow the walkway to the side entrance of Clark Hall. The parking structure on Ford just north of Euclid is a bit closer. Participants could walk down the alley just north of the garage, heading east, and Clark will be the third building on their right. A third possibility is the parking lot of the Church of the Covenant.
Schedule of Friday Lunch Upcoming Topics and Speakers:
March 2: The Past and Future of Net Neutrality. With Aaron Perzanowski J.D., Professor of Law.
March 9: Law Enforcement and the Opioid Crisis. With Daniel Flannery Ph.D., Professor and Director, Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education.
March 16: Spring Break
March 23: Alzheimer’s: From Care to Cure and Back. With Peter Whitehouse, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Neurology. ***Alternate Location: Zverina Room of the Dittrick Medical History Center, 3rd floor of the Allen Memorial Library, 11000 Euclid Ave.***
March 30: Panama and Paradise: What Have We Learned from the “Papers,” and Will It Make Any Difference? With Richard Gordon J.D., Professor of Law and Director, Financial Integrity Institute.
April 6: Income Inequality Among Seniors, At Home and Abroad. With Terry Hokenstad Jr. Ph.D., Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, and Emily Campbell M.A., Associate Director, Center for Community Solutions.
April 13: TBA
April 20: People and Property. With Peter Gerhart J.D., Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Law.
April 27: Two Sides of Brexit. With Elliot Posner Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Science, and Luke Reader Ph.D., SAGES Lecturer. |
|
February 19, 2018
If you would like to reply, submit items for inclusion, or not receive this weekly e-mail please send a notice to: padg@case.edu
Upcoming Events
Writing Radical History: The One Man Revolution of Ammon Hennacy
A discussion with William Marling, Ph.D., Professor of English, Case Western Reserve University, Friday February 23, 2018, 3:15 p.m., Guilford House Parlor, 11112 Bellflower Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44106.
Writing about radicals is not your usual scholarship. Actual archives are scarce and scattered. Oral histories tend to hagiography, while newspapers and legal records are unrelentingly negative. The issues that inspired the radical require resuscitation.
William Marling will explain how he navigates these difficulties in writing the biography of celebrated “Christian Anarchist” Ammon Hennacy, who was born and grew up in northeast Ohio. A conscientious objector who spent 2 ½ years in jail during W.W.I., Hennacy refused to pay taxes, lived a life of voluntary poverty, and founded the Joe Hill Houses for the homeless. While researching him, Marling discovered a radical Ohio, the radical Catholic church, radical Hopis, and even radical Fuller Brush salesmen.
Marling has published six books and over 50 scholarly articles on American poetry, the detective novel, film noir, globalization, and world literature. His most recent works are Gatekeepers: The Emergence of World Literature and the 1960s (Oxford, 2016) and Killers in Tutus (Paris, Editions Croulebarbe, 2017).
Legal Perspectives on the Opioid Crises: Law in the Courts, the Statehouses and the Medical Clinics
A discussion with Abbe R. Gluck, JD, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law School, Tuesday February 27, 2018, 4:30 p.m., CWRU School of Law, Moot Courtroom (A59), 11075 East Blvd., Cleveland, Ohio 44106. This program is free and open to the public. Online registration available or register at the door.
The opioid crisis has produced a multipronged, interdisciplinary response in which law plays a central role. This talk will discuss the current litigation addressing the crisis, as well as legislative response, and the interaction between the law and the practice of medicine.
Abbe R. Gluck joined the faculty of Yale Law School in 2012, after serving on the faculty of Columbia Law School and extensive experience in New York City and state of New Jersey governments. She earned her B.A. Summa Cum Laude and J.D. from Yale, and clerked for then-Chief Judge Ralph K. Winter on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her work has been published in, among other journals, the Yale Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review, Columbia Law Review, and the New England Journal of Medicine. She served as co-counsel on Supreme Court briefs on both the NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell cases about the Affordable Care Act.
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
