By Galen Druke @ FiveThirtyEight.com, June 18
The Supreme Court’s much-awaited gerrymandering decisions were released on Monday, and they landed with a resounding meh.
The court declined to touch the merits of the two cases under consideration and instead rejected them for procedural reasons.1 That means extreme partisan gerrymandering will end the day the way it began: in legal purgatory. Still, the court is likely to have additional opportunities to weigh in on the gerrymandering debate soon.
For now, however, things remain unclear. In a 2004 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that “extreme” partisan gerrymandering could be unconstitutional, but that the court would need a standard for deciding when a gerrymander crosses into “extreme” territory. Both of the cases before the court — Gill v. Whitford out of Wisconsin, and Benisek v. Lamoneout of Maryland — presented the court with potential standards. But because the justices dismissed the cases on procedural grounds, we still don’t know what they think of those standards.2 [....]