In win for GOP, Supreme Court blocks NY map change before midterms
Briefly

In win for GOP, Supreme Court blocks NY map change before midterms
"Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., and others had asked the high court to let New York use its existing congressional map for this fall's election, even though a state court said the map unlawfully diluted the voting power of Black and Latino residents. The emergency request was backed by the Trump administration, which has pushed red states to rejigger maps to improve Republicans' chances of keeping control of Congress."
"In January, a judge agreed with a group of voters that Black and Latino voters weren't given a sufficient chance to elect their preferred candidate, a violation of the state's constitution. The Trump administration told the Supreme Court the New York judge had 'ordered an open and unabashed racial gerrymander, directing the State to replace a district where the candidate backed by white voters usually wins with one where the candidate backed by black and Latino voters usually wins.'"
"New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and other Democratic officials said the congresswoman and other challengers took the 'extraordinary' step of asking the Supreme Court to intervene before they'd fully appealed the judge's decision through New York's courts. Intervening, they said, 'would severely undermine principles of federalism.'"
The Supreme Court intervened in a New York congressional redistricting dispute by agreeing to a Republican request to maintain the state's existing congressional map for the 2024 election. A New York state court had previously ruled that the map unlawfully diluted the voting power of Black and Latino residents in a district covering Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn. The Trump administration supported the Republican challenge, arguing the state court's decision constituted a racial gerrymander favoring Democratic voters. Democratic officials, including Governor Kathy Hochul, opposed the Supreme Court's intervention, contending it violated federalism principles and circumvented normal appellate procedures. The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned decision.
Read at USA TODAY
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]