Fight over electoral district boundaries heads to Supreme CourtWASHINGTON (Reuters) - It is a political practice nearly as old as the United States - manipulating the boundaries of legislative districts to help one party tighten its grip on power in a move called partisan gerrymandering - and one the Supreme Court has never curbed. That could soon change, with the nine justices making the legal fight over Republican-drawn electoral maps in Wisconsin one of the first cases they hear during their 2017-2018 term that begins next month. Their ruling in the case could influence American politics for decades. Wisconsin officials point to the difficulty of having courts craft a workable standard for when partisan gerrymandering violates constitutional protections. Opponents of the practice said limits are urgently needed, noting that sophisticated technological tools now enable a dominant party to devise with new precision state electoral maps that marginalize large swathes of voters in legislative elections. “There is a sense that something has gone amiss with American democracy, that there is this effort to rig the rules of the game,” said Michael Li, an expert in redistricting at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Gerrymandering used to be a dark art, and now it’s a dark science.” The justices will hear arguments on Oct. 3 in Wisconsin’s appeal of a lower court ruling that found that the electoral map drawn by state Republicans ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution. The map, drawn after the 2010 U.S. census, enabled them to win a sizable majority of Wisconsin legislative seats despite losing the popular vote statewide to the Democrats. The party’s majority has widened since.  The justices must decide whether courts should have a say in such matters. The Supreme Court for decades has been willing to invalidate state electoral maps on the grounds of racial discrimination but never those drawn simply to give one party an advantage. The justices have never settled on a standard by which partisan gerrymandering claims can be measured. In a 2004 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy left the door open for a “workable standard” to eventually be found. Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the liberal justices on a court with a 5-4 conservative majority, could cast the deciding vote in the Wisconsin case.  A federal three-judge panel ruled 2-1 last November that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and First Amendment right to freedom of expression and association. Over the decades, both Republicans and Democrats have been accused of gerrymandering. Since 2010, Republicans’ control of redistricting has coincided with major seat advantages for them in state legislatures, the Brennan Center said.  It is not just Republicans who are accused of abuses. Republican voters sued over districts drawn by Democratic lawmakers in Maryland and have appealed to the Supreme Court. State and federal legislative district boundaries are reconfigured after the U.S. government conducts a census every decade so that each one contains about same number of people, typically by the party that controls the state legislature. The Republican National Committee and several conservative groups have backed Wisconsin, but leading Republicans including Senator John McCain, 1996 presidential nominee Bob Dole and Ohio Governor John Kasich have joined critics who argue that partisan gerrymandering distorts the democratic process. ‘SOCIAL-SCIENCE HODGEPODGE’ Wisconsin Republicans argued that election results since their redistricting plan was passed in 2011 reflect the state’s political geography, with Democrats concentrated in cities like Milwaukee and Madison and Republicans more spread out around the state.  The state also took issue with metrics that the lower court used to determine that there was a significant partisan bias in the redistricting plan. This “social-science hodgepodge,” the state told the justices, makes it impossible for judges to fairly determine when an electoral map is unlawful.   “Plaintiffs’ social-science approach would sow chaos. Each legislatively drawn plan would be immediately challenged in federal court,” the state said in a legal brief to the justices. Nicholas Goedert, a Virginia Tech redistricting expert who testified in court for Wisconsin, said the metrics may be inappropriate because their results can change from one election to the next. Goedert noted that large shifts in the mood of voters can cause even highly biased electoral maps to flip. “Partisan maps have a tendency to backfire on the party that drew them,” Goedert said. The case began in 2015 when a dozen Wisconsin Democratic Party voters sued state election officials claiming the redistricting law intended to discriminate against them for their political beliefs and create enduring Republican majorities. They urged the justices to either greenlight the lower court’s method of deciding cases of partisan gerrymandering, or create their own.  “Government should treat voters equally regardless of their viewpoint and we have ways to measure it,” said Danielle Lang, an attorney for the plaintiffs. If the justices rule that courts must stay out of this highly political process, voters will lose, Lang said. “There would be no way for voters to rein in partisan gerrymandering, no way for voters to take back control of their government.” (For a graphic on Wisconsin state electoral maps, click tmsnrt.rs/2haOPD5) politicsNews
fight electoral district boundaries heads supreme courtwashington reuters it political practice nearly old united states manipulating boundaries legislative districts help one party tighten grip power move called partisan gerrymandering one supreme court never curved that could soon change nine justices making legal fight electoral maps wisconsin one first cases hear term begins next month their ruling case could influence american politics decades wisconsin officials point difficulty courts craft workable standard partisan gerrymandering violates constitutional protections opponents practice said limits urgently needed noting sophisticated technological tools enable dominant party devise new precision state electoral maps marginalized large states voters legislative elections there sense something gone miss american democracy effort rig rules game said michael li expert redistricting new york university school law brennan center justice gerrymandering used dark art dark the justices hear arguments wisconsin appeal lower court ruling found electoral map drawn state republicans ran afoul constitution the map drawn census enabled win sizable majority wisconsin legislative seats despite losing popular vote statewide democrats the party majority widened since the justices must decide whether courts say matters the supreme court decades willing invalidate state electoral maps grounds racial discrimination never drawn simply give one party advantage the justices never settled standard partisan gerrymandering claims measured in case justice anthony kennedy left door open workable standard eventually found kennedy conservative sometimes sides liberal justices court conservative majority could cast deciding vote wisconsin case a federal panel ruled last november wisconsin redistricting plan violated constitution amendment guarantee equal protection law first amendment right freedom expression association over decades republicans democrats accused gerrymandering since republicans control redistricting coincided major seat advantages state legislatures brennan center said it republicans accused abuses republican voters sued districts drawn democratic lawmakers maryland appealed supreme court state federal legislative district boundaries reconfigured government conducts census every decade one contains number people typically party controls state legislature the republican national committee several conservative groups backed wisconsin leading republicans including senator john mccain presidential nominee bob role ohio governor john basic joined critics argue partisan gerrymandering distort democratic process hodgepodge wisconsin republicans argued election results since redistricting plan passed reflect state political geography democrats concentrated cities like milwaukee madison republicans spread around state the state also took issue metrics lower court used determine significant partisan bias redistricting plan this hodgepodge state told justices makes impossible judges fairly determine electoral map unlawful plaintiffs approach would sow chaos each legislative drawn plan would immediately challenged federal court state said legal brief justices nicholas goedert virginia tech redistricting expert testified court wisconsin said metrics may inappropriate results change one election next goedert noted large shifts mood voters cause even highly biased electoral maps flip partisan maps tendency backfires party drew goedert said the case began dozen wisconsin democratic party voters sued state election officials claiming redistricting law intended discriminate political beliefs create enduring republican majorities they urged justices either greenlight lower court method deciding cases partisan gerrymandering create government treat voters equally regardless viewpoint ways measure said danielle lang attorney plaintiffs if justices rule courts must stay highly political process voters lose lang said there would way voters rein partisan gerrymandering way voters take back control for graphic wisconsin state electoral maps click 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: Fight over electoral district boundaries heads to Supreme CourtWASHINGTON (Reuters) - It is a political practice nearly as old as the United States - manipulating the boundaries of legislative districts to help one party tighten its grip on power in a move called partisan gerrymandering - and one the Supreme Court has never curbed. That could soon change, with the nine justices making the legal fight over Republican-drawn electoral maps in Wisconsin one of the first cases they hear during their 2017-2018 term that begins next month. Their ruling in the case could influence American politics for decades. Wisconsin officials point to the difficulty of having courts craft a workable standard for when partisan gerrymandering violates constitutional protections. Opponents of the practice said limits are urgently needed, noting that sophisticated technological tools now enable a dominant party to devise with new precision state electoral maps that marginalize large swathes of voters in legislative elections. “There is a sense that something has gone amiss with American democracy, that there is this effort to rig the rules of the game,” said Michael Li, an expert in redistricting at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Gerrymandering used to be a dark art, and now it’s a dark science.” The justices will hear arguments on Oct. 3 in Wisconsin’s appeal of a lower court ruling that found that the electoral map drawn by state Republicans ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution. The map, drawn after the 2010 U.S. census, enabled them to win a sizable majority of Wisconsin legislative seats despite losing the popular vote statewide to the Democrats. The party’s majority has widened since.  The justices must decide whether courts should have a say in such matters. The Supreme Court for decades has been willing to invalidate state electoral maps on the grounds of racial discrimination but never those drawn simply to give one party an advantage. The justices have never settled on a standard by which partisan gerrymandering claims can be measured. In a 2004 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy left the door open for a “workable standard” to eventually be found. Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the liberal justices on a court with a 5-4 conservative majority, could cast the deciding vote in the Wisconsin case.  A federal three-judge panel ruled 2-1 last November that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and First Amendment right to freedom of expression and association. Over the decades, both Republicans and Democrats have been accused of gerrymandering. Since 2010, Republicans’ control of redistricting has coincided with major seat advantages for them in state legislatures, the Brennan Center said.  It is not just Republicans who are accused of abuses. Republican voters sued over districts drawn by Democratic lawmakers in Maryland and have appealed to the Supreme Court. State and federal legislative district boundaries are reconfigured after the U.S. government conducts a census every decade so that each one contains about same number of people, typically by the party that controls the state legislature. The Republican National Committee and several conservative groups have backed Wisconsin, but leading Republicans including Senator John McCain, 1996 presidential nominee Bob Dole and Ohio Governor John Kasich have joined critics who argue that partisan gerrymandering distorts the democratic process. ‘SOCIAL-SCIENCE HODGEPODGE’ Wisconsin Republicans argued that election results since their redistricting plan was passed in 2011 reflect the state’s political geography, with Democrats concentrated in cities like Milwaukee and Madison and Republicans more spread out around the state.  The state also took issue with metrics that the lower court used to determine that there was a significant partisan bias in the redistricting plan. This “social-science hodgepodge,” the state told the justices, makes it impossible for judges to fairly determine when an electoral map is unlawful.   “Plaintiffs’ social-science approach would sow chaos. Each legislatively drawn plan would be immediately challenged in federal court,” the state said in a legal brief to the justices. Nicholas Goedert, a Virginia Tech redistricting expert who testified in court for Wisconsin, said the metrics may be inappropriate because their results can change from one election to the next. Goedert noted that large shifts in the mood of voters can cause even highly biased electoral maps to flip. “Partisan maps have a tendency to backfire on the party that drew them,” Goedert said. The case began in 2015 when a dozen Wisconsin Democratic Party voters sued state election officials claiming the redistricting law intended to discriminate against them for their political beliefs and create enduring Republican majorities. They urged the justices to either greenlight the lower court’s method of deciding cases of partisan gerrymandering, or create their own.  “Government should treat voters equally regardless of their viewpoint and we have ways to measure it,” said Danielle Lang, an attorney for the plaintiffs. If the justices rule that courts must stay out of this highly political process, voters will lose, Lang said. “There would be no way for voters to rein in partisan gerrymandering, no way for voters to take back control of their government.” (For a graphic on Wisconsin state electoral maps, click tmsnrt.rs/2haOPD5) 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: fight electoral district boundaries heads supreme courtwashington reuters it political practice nearly old united states manipulating boundaries legislative districts help one party tighten grip power move called partisan gerrymandering one supreme court never curved that could soon change nine justices making legal fight electoral maps wisconsin one first cases hear term begins next month their ruling case could influence american politics decades wisconsin officials point difficulty courts craft workable standard partisan gerrymandering violates constitutional protections opponents practice said limits urgently needed noting sophisticated technological tools enable dominant party devise new precision state electoral maps marginalized large states voters legislative elections there sense something gone miss american democracy effort rig rules game said michael li expert redistricting new york university school law brennan center justice gerrymandering used dark art dark the justices hear arguments wisconsin appeal lower court ruling found electoral map drawn state republicans ran afoul constitution the map drawn census enabled win sizable majority wisconsin legislative seats despite losing popular vote statewide democrats the party majority widened since the justices must decide whether courts say matters the supreme court decades willing invalidate state electoral maps grounds racial discrimination never drawn simply give one party advantage the justices never settled standard partisan gerrymandering claims measured in case justice anthony kennedy left door open workable standard eventually found kennedy conservative sometimes sides liberal justices court conservative majority could cast deciding vote wisconsin case a federal panel ruled last november wisconsin redistricting plan violated constitution amendment guarantee equal protection law first amendment right freedom expression association over decades republicans democrats accused gerrymandering since republicans control redistricting coincided major seat advantages state legislatures brennan center said it republicans accused abuses republican voters sued districts drawn democratic lawmakers maryland appealed supreme court state federal legislative district boundaries reconfigured government conducts census every decade one contains number people typically party controls state legislature the republican national committee several conservative groups backed wisconsin leading republicans including senator john mccain presidential nominee bob role ohio governor john basic joined critics argue partisan gerrymandering distort democratic process hodgepodge wisconsin republicans argued election results since redistricting plan passed reflect state political geography democrats concentrated cities like milwaukee madison republicans spread around state the state also took issue metrics lower court used determine significant partisan bias redistricting plan this hodgepodge state told justices makes impossible judges fairly determine electoral map unlawful plaintiffs approach would sow chaos each legislative drawn plan would immediately challenged federal court state said legal brief justices nicholas goedert virginia tech redistricting expert testified court wisconsin said metrics may inappropriate results change one election next goedert noted large shifts mood voters cause even highly biased electoral maps flip partisan maps tendency backfires party drew goedert said the case began dozen wisconsin democratic party voters sued state election officials claiming redistricting law intended discriminate political beliefs create enduring republican majorities they urged justices either greenlight lower court method deciding cases partisan gerrymandering create government treat voters equally regardless viewpoint ways measure said danielle lang attorney plaintiffs if justices rule courts must stay highly political process voters lose lang said there would way voters rein partisan gerrymandering way voters take back control for graphic wisconsin state electoral maps click politicsnews