Partisanship and Redistricting What the Supreme Court Has to Say

Wendy Underhill 7/20/2018
webinar graphic

NCSL Webinars allow attendees to participate in meetings taking place around the world from the comfort of their desk. They are collaborative, interactive and easy to use.

Most webinars will be recorded for those who are unable to attend the live meeting.

Partisanship and Redistricting: What the Supreme Court Has to Say

When it comes to redistricting, how much partisanship is too much? Or is there a “too much?”

The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t answer these questions this term. Regardless, the lower courts and the Supreme Court will continue to deal with partisan gerrymandering cases going forward. Learn what the arguments were, what the outcomes were, and what may be next for partisan gerrymandering.

Misha Tseytlin, Wisconsin solicitor general, who argued Gill v. Whitford in support of the Wisconsin legislators defending the plan, discussed the Supreme Court’s opinion in that case. Michael Kimberly, partner at Mayer Brown and co-director of the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic, who argued Benisek v. Lamone in support of the challengers to Maryland’s redistricting plan, discussed the Supreme Court’s opinion in that case.

Paul Diller, professor at ​Willamette University College of Law, who co-​wrote an amicus brief on behalf of a number of national local government associations and law professors supporting the challengers in Gill v. Whitford, provided additional thoughts on the significance and implications of these cases.

View the Webinar

 

Moderator

  • Wendy Underhill, Director—Elections & Redistricting, NCSL (moderator)

Speakers

  • Misha Tseytlin, solicitor general, Wisconsin Department of Justice
  • Paul A. Diller, professor of law, Willamette University College of Law
  • Michael Kimberly, partner at Mayer Brown and co-director of the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic