She said that means four of the six judges in North Carolina and Pennsylvania agree with her side, while two judges do not. In 2018, we can only hope, the state's voters let them know enough is enough.
In an emergency application, the Tar Heel State lawmakers focused on time constraints - as well as "multiple entirely novel theories" the lower court adopted in Tuesday's ruling - that struck down the state's 2016 congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. They were "motivated by invidious partisan intent" is how the judges describe it.
"Prohibiting the State from using the duly enacted districting map that governed its last election cycle on the eve of the commencement of the 2018 election cycle is not just practically disruptive, but represents a grave and irreparable sovereign injury", they wrote. The GOP won 10 seats in November 2016. The federal judges want the districts to be redrawn immediately by the GOP.
Leaders of the Republican majority in the legislature were unbridled in confessing their arrogance.
A group of Democratic voters had originally filed a lawsuit saying the map should be thrown out because the lawmakers who created the map in 2011, gerrymandered it to help Republicans.
When the legislature passed the plan, state Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said the maps were drawn to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because it wasn't "possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats". There were statements similar to that made by the legislators in Wisconsin. "Rather, 'the core principle of our republican government is that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around'". The motion states the ruling in the Wisconsin case would likely affect North Carolina's case as well. That came even though Democrats received more congressional votes in the state in 2012.
Such extreme rhetoric, and unfounded personal accusation, is inappropriate.
Rest assured, the three-judge panel's ruling isn't going to be the last word. He can also discuss the judges' ruling that the districts must be redrawn by January 24, what would need to happen to accomplish that and arguments surrounding partisan gerrymandering.
"The Supreme Court in 2004 said that there is such a thing as partisan gerrymandering, but we're just not quite sure how its proved", said Mark Johnson, an election law and First Amendment expert at the University of Kansas.
Plaintiffs in the case argued Republicans drew oddly shaped maps to make a handful of districts where Democrats would have huge electoral advantages and more where Republicans would be likely to win. A spokesperson told the newspaper that legislative leaders will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Republican lawyers had already asked the three-judge panel to order a delay of its decision by Thursday, but jumped to the Supreme Court on Friday when the judges didn't act that quickly. It needs to be a top issue in the priorities voters make in evaluating candidates. There might be a week or two at play for any shifting of the filing period and primary election cycles. Those who don't support a non-partisan system should be rejected at the ballot box.