Supreme Court to hear major case on political boundariesWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the U.S. Constitution limits how far lawmakers can go to redraw voting districts to favor one political party over another in a case that could have huge consequences for American elections. The high court has been willing to invalidate state electoral maps on the grounds of racial discrimination, as it did on May 22 when it found that Republican legislators in North Carolina had drawn two electoral districts to diminish the statewide political clout of black voters. But the justices have not thrown out state electoral maps drawn simply to give one party an advantage over another. The justices will take up Wisconsin’s appeal of a lower court ruling last November that state Republican lawmakers violated the Constitution when they created state legislative districts with the partisan aim of hobbling Democrats in legislative races. The case will be one of the biggest heard by the Supreme Court during its term that begins in October. The case involves a long-standing practice known as gerrymandering, a term meaning manipulating electoral boundaries for an unfair political advantage. The lower court ruled that the Republican-led legislature’s redrawing of state legislative districts in 2011 amounted to “an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.” A panel of three federal judges in Madison ruled 2-1 that the way the Republicans redrew the districts violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law and free speech by undercutting the ability of Democratic voters to turn their votes into seats in Wisconsin’s legislature. In a possible sign of deep ideological divisions among the nine justices over the issue, the court’s conservative majority granted Wisconsin’s request, despite opposition from the four liberal justices, to put on hold the lower court’s order requiring the state to redraw its electoral maps by Nov. 1. That means Wisconsin will not need to put in place a new electoral map while the justices consider the matter. A Supreme Court ruling faulting the Wisconsin redistricting plan could have far-reaching consequences for the redrawing of electoral districts due after the 2020 U.S. census. State and federal legislative district boundaries are reconfigured every decade after the census so that each one holds about same number of people, but are sometimes draw in a way that packs voters who tend to favor a particular party into certain districts so as to diminish their statewide voting power. Wisconsin Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel welcomed the justices’ decision to hear the state’s appeal and called the state’s redistricting process “entirely lawful and constitutional.” The case in the short term could affect congressional maps in about half a dozen states and legislative maps in about 10 states, before having major implications for the post-2020 redistricting, according to the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Wisconsin’s gerrymander was one of the most aggressive of the decade, locking in a large and implausibly stable majority for Republicans in what is otherwise a battleground state,” said Brennan Center redistricting expert Thomas Wolf. “It’s a symptom of politics going haywire and something that we increasingly see when one party has sole control of the redistricting process.” Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s liberals in major cases, could cast the decisive vote. Kennedy, writing in a 2004 case, indicated he may be open to the idea that racial gerrymanders could violate the Constitution. Though a “workable standard” defining it did not exist, he suggested one might emerge in a future case. Democrats have accused Republicans of taking improper actions at the state level to suppress the turnout of minority voters and others who tend to support Democrats and maximize the number of party members in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans call their actions lawful. Republicans control the U.S. Congress. They also have majorities in an all-time high of 69 of 99 state legislative chambers, according to the Republican State Leadership Committee. After winning control of the state legislature in 2010, Wisconsin Republicans redrew the statewide electoral map. They were able to amplify Republican voting power, gaining more seats than their percentage of the statewide vote would suggest. In 2012, Republicans received about 49 percent of the vote but won 60 of the 99 state Assembly seats. In 2014, the party garnered 52 percent of the vote and 63 Assembly seats. A dozen Wisconsin Democratic Party voters in 2015 sued state election officials, saying the redistricting divided Democratic voters in some areas and packed them in others to dilute their electoral clout and benefit Republican candidates.  The lower court found that redistricting efforts are unlawful partisan gerrymandering when they seek to entrench the party in power, and have no other legitimate justification.  The state argues recent election results favoring Republicans were “a reflection of Wisconsin’s natural political geography,” with Democrats concentrated in urban areas like Milwaukee and Madison.  politicsNews
supreme court hear major case political boundarieswashington reuters the supreme court agreed monday decide whether constitution limits far lawmakers go redrawn voting districts favor one political party another case could huge consequences american elections the high court willing invalidate state electoral maps grounds racial discrimination may found republican legislators north carolina drawn two electoral districts diminish statewide political clout black voters but justices thrown state electoral maps drawn simply give one party advantage another the justices take wisconsin appeal lower court ruling last november state republican lawmakers violated constitution created state legislative districts partisan aim lobbying democrats legislative races the case one biggest heard supreme court term begins october the case involves practice known gerrymandering term meaning manipulating electoral boundaries unfair political advantage the lower court ruled legislature drawing state legislative districts amounted unconstitutional partisan a panel three federal judges madison ruled way republicans review districts violated constitution guarantees equal protection law free speech undercutting ability democratic voters turn votes seats wisconsin legislature in possible sign deep ideological divisions among nine justices issue court conservative majority granted wisconsin request despite opposition four liberal justices put hold lower court order requiring state redrawn electoral maps that means wisconsin need put place new electoral map justices consider matter a supreme court ruling vaulting wisconsin redistricting plan could consequences drawing electoral districts due census state federal legislative district boundaries reconfigured every decade census one holds number people sometimes draw way packs voters tend favor particular party certain districts diminish statewide voting power wisconsin republican attorney general brad scheme welcomed justices decision hear state appeal called state redistricting process entirely lawful the case short term could affect congressional maps half dozen states legislative maps states major implications redistricting according new york university school law brennan center justice wisconsin gerrymander one aggressive decade locking large implausible stable majority republicans otherwise battleground state said brennan center redistricting expert thomas wolf it symptom politics going haywire something increasingly see one party sole control redistricting justice anthony kennedy conservative sometimes sides court liberals major cases could cast decisive vote kennedy writing case indicated may open idea racial gerrymanders could violate constitution though workable standard defining exist suggested one might emerge future case democrats accused republicans taking improper actions state level suppress turnout minority voters others tend support democrats maximize number party members state legislatures house representatives republicans call actions lawful republicans control congress they also majorities high state legislative chambers according republican state leadership committee after winning control state legislature wisconsin republicans review statewide electoral map they able amplify republican voting power gaining seats percentage statewide vote would suggest in republicans received percent vote state assembly seats in party garnered percent vote assembly seats a dozen wisconsin democratic party voters sued state election officials saying redistricting divided democratic voters areas packed others dilute electoral clout benefit republican candidates the lower court found redistricting efforts unlawful partisan gerrymandering seek entrance party power legitimate justification the state argues recent election results favoring republicans reflection wisconsin natural political geography democrats concentrated urban areas like milwaukee madison politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Supreme Court to hear major case on political boundariesWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the U.S. Constitution limits how far lawmakers can go to redraw voting districts to favor one political party over another in a case that could have huge consequences for American elections. The high court has been willing to invalidate state electoral maps on the grounds of racial discrimination, as it did on May 22 when it found that Republican legislators in North Carolina had drawn two electoral districts to diminish the statewide political clout of black voters. But the justices have not thrown out state electoral maps drawn simply to give one party an advantage over another. The justices will take up Wisconsin’s appeal of a lower court ruling last November that state Republican lawmakers violated the Constitution when they created state legislative districts with the partisan aim of hobbling Democrats in legislative races. The case will be one of the biggest heard by the Supreme Court during its term that begins in October. The case involves a long-standing practice known as gerrymandering, a term meaning manipulating electoral boundaries for an unfair political advantage. The lower court ruled that the Republican-led legislature’s redrawing of state legislative districts in 2011 amounted to “an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.” A panel of three federal judges in Madison ruled 2-1 that the way the Republicans redrew the districts violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law and free speech by undercutting the ability of Democratic voters to turn their votes into seats in Wisconsin’s legislature. In a possible sign of deep ideological divisions among the nine justices over the issue, the court’s conservative majority granted Wisconsin’s request, despite opposition from the four liberal justices, to put on hold the lower court’s order requiring the state to redraw its electoral maps by Nov. 1. That means Wisconsin will not need to put in place a new electoral map while the justices consider the matter. A Supreme Court ruling faulting the Wisconsin redistricting plan could have far-reaching consequences for the redrawing of electoral districts due after the 2020 U.S. census. State and federal legislative district boundaries are reconfigured every decade after the census so that each one holds about same number of people, but are sometimes draw in a way that packs voters who tend to favor a particular party into certain districts so as to diminish their statewide voting power. Wisconsin Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel welcomed the justices’ decision to hear the state’s appeal and called the state’s redistricting process “entirely lawful and constitutional.” The case in the short term could affect congressional maps in about half a dozen states and legislative maps in about 10 states, before having major implications for the post-2020 redistricting, according to the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Wisconsin’s gerrymander was one of the most aggressive of the decade, locking in a large and implausibly stable majority for Republicans in what is otherwise a battleground state,” said Brennan Center redistricting expert Thomas Wolf. “It’s a symptom of politics going haywire and something that we increasingly see when one party has sole control of the redistricting process.” Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s liberals in major cases, could cast the decisive vote. Kennedy, writing in a 2004 case, indicated he may be open to the idea that racial gerrymanders could violate the Constitution. Though a “workable standard” defining it did not exist, he suggested one might emerge in a future case. Democrats have accused Republicans of taking improper actions at the state level to suppress the turnout of minority voters and others who tend to support Democrats and maximize the number of party members in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans call their actions lawful. Republicans control the U.S. Congress. They also have majorities in an all-time high of 69 of 99 state legislative chambers, according to the Republican State Leadership Committee. After winning control of the state legislature in 2010, Wisconsin Republicans redrew the statewide electoral map. They were able to amplify Republican voting power, gaining more seats than their percentage of the statewide vote would suggest. In 2012, Republicans received about 49 percent of the vote but won 60 of the 99 state Assembly seats. In 2014, the party garnered 52 percent of the vote and 63 Assembly seats. A dozen Wisconsin Democratic Party voters in 2015 sued state election officials, saying the redistricting divided Democratic voters in some areas and packed them in others to dilute their electoral clout and benefit Republican candidates.  The lower court found that redistricting efforts are unlawful partisan gerrymandering when they seek to entrench the party in power, and have no other legitimate justification.  The state argues recent election results favoring Republicans were “a reflection of Wisconsin’s natural political geography,” with Democrats concentrated in urban areas like Milwaukee and Madison.  politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: supreme court hear major case political boundarieswashington reuters the supreme court agreed monday decide whether constitution limits far lawmakers go redrawn voting districts favor one political party another case could huge consequences american elections the high court willing invalidate state electoral maps grounds racial discrimination may found republican legislators north carolina drawn two electoral districts diminish statewide political clout black voters but justices thrown state electoral maps drawn simply give one party advantage another the justices take wisconsin appeal lower court ruling last november state republican lawmakers violated constitution created state legislative districts partisan aim lobbying democrats legislative races the case one biggest heard supreme court term begins october the case involves practice known gerrymandering term meaning manipulating electoral boundaries unfair political advantage the lower court ruled legislature drawing state legislative districts amounted unconstitutional partisan a panel three federal judges madison ruled way republicans review districts violated constitution guarantees equal protection law free speech undercutting ability democratic voters turn votes seats wisconsin legislature in possible sign deep ideological divisions among nine justices issue court conservative majority granted wisconsin request despite opposition four liberal justices put hold lower court order requiring state redrawn electoral maps that means wisconsin need put place new electoral map justices consider matter a supreme court ruling vaulting wisconsin redistricting plan could consequences drawing electoral districts due census state federal legislative district boundaries reconfigured every decade census one holds number people sometimes draw way packs voters tend favor particular party certain districts diminish statewide voting power wisconsin republican attorney general brad scheme welcomed justices decision hear state appeal called state redistricting process entirely lawful the case short term could affect congressional maps half dozen states legislative maps states major implications redistricting according new york university school law brennan center justice wisconsin gerrymander one aggressive decade locking large implausible stable majority republicans otherwise battleground state said brennan center redistricting expert thomas wolf it symptom politics going haywire something increasingly see one party sole control redistricting justice anthony kennedy conservative sometimes sides court liberals major cases could cast decisive vote kennedy writing case indicated may open idea racial gerrymanders could violate constitution though workable standard defining exist suggested one might emerge future case democrats accused republicans taking improper actions state level suppress turnout minority voters others tend support democrats maximize number party members state legislatures house representatives republicans call actions lawful republicans control congress they also majorities high state legislative chambers according republican state leadership committee after winning control state legislature wisconsin republicans review statewide electoral map they able amplify republican voting power gaining seats percentage statewide vote would suggest in republicans received percent vote state assembly seats in party garnered percent vote assembly seats a dozen wisconsin democratic party voters sued state election officials saying redistricting divided democratic voters areas packed others dilute electoral clout benefit republican candidates the lower court found redistricting efforts unlawful partisan gerrymandering seek entrance party power legitimate justification the state argues recent election results favoring republicans reflection wisconsin natural political geography democrats concentrated urban areas like milwaukee madison politicsnews