Mondays decision indicates that Justice Anthony Kennedy, pictured above, is moving in the right direction on the issues at the heart of partisan gerrymandering.
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gill v. Whitford, a blockbuster case that could curb partisan gerrymandering throughout the United States. Shortly thereafter, the justices handed down two excellent decisions bolstering the First Amendments free speech protections for sex offenders and derogatory trademarks. While the link between these two rulings and Whitford isnt obvious at first glance, it seems possible that both decisions could strengthen the gerrymandering plaintiffs central argumentand help to end extreme partisan redistricting for good.
Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.
The first ruling, Matal v. Tam, involves a dance-rock band called the Slants that sought to trademark its name. Simon Tam, the founding member, chose the name precisely because of its offensive history, hoping to reclaim the term. (He and his fellow band members are Asian American.) But the Patent and Trademark Office refused to register the name, citing a federal law that bars the registration of trademarks that could disparage or bring into contemp[t] or disrepute any persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols. (The same rule spurred the revocation of the Redskins trademark.)
Every justice agreed that the anti-disparagement law ran afoul of the First Amendment. They split, however, on the question of why, exactly, the rule violates the freedom of speech. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer, applied the somewhat lenient test for commercial speech, which requires that a law be narrowly drawn to further a substantial interest. The trademark rule, Alito wrote, is ridiculously broad: It could apply to such theoretical trademarks as Down with homophobes (disparaging beliefs) and James Buchanan was a disastrous president (disparaging a person, living or dead). The law, then, is not an anti-discrimination clause, Alito concluded. It is a happy-talk clause, one that is far too sweeping to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Justice Anthony Kennedy perceived even more insidious censorship at play. In a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Kennedy wrote that the measure in question constitutes viewpoint discriminationan egregious form of speech suppression that is presumptively unconstitutional. Under the First Amendment, Kennedy explained, the government may not singl[e]out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed, even when the message is conveyed in the commercial context. The anti-disparagement rule does exactly that, punishing an individual who wishes to trademark a name that the government finds offensive. This is the essence of viewpoint discrimination, Kennedy declared, and it cannot comport with the First Amendment.
A similar rift opened up between the justices in the second free speech case of the day, Packingham v. North Carolinaanother unanimous ruling with split opinions. (Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in either case, as oral arguments came before he was confirmed.) Packingham involved a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing any social media website, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. The language of the statute is so sweeping that it also barred access to websites with commenting features such as Amazon and even the Washington Post. In essence, the law excludes sex offenders from the internet. North Carolina has used it to prosecute more than 1,000 people.
Kennedy, joined by all four liberals, subjected the law to intermediate scrutiny, asking whether it burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the governments legitimate interests. He easily found that it did. The Cyber Age is a revolution of historic proportions, Kennedy wrote, and social media users engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on topics as diverse as human thought. Our interactions on the internet alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be; to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. The North Carolina law therefore suppresses too much expression and is thus in contravention of the Constitution.
In his ode to social media, Kennedy proclaimed that the internet has become the modern public square, the 21st-century equivalent to those public streets and parks where the Framers hoped Americans would speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. (Kennedys prose remains distinctive as ever.) In a concurrence, Alito, joined by Roberts and Thomas, rejected Kennedys public square theory as loose, undisciplined, and unnecessary rhetoric that elides differences between cyberspace and the physical world. The three conservatives agreed that the North Carolina law swept too far but insisted that Kennedys opinion granted sex offenders a dangerous amount of freedom on the web.
So: What do these casesboth correctly decided, in my viewhave to do with gerrymandering?
To start, its important to view gerrymandering through a free speech lens, one developed by Kennedy himself in 2004. When the government draws districts designed to dilute votes cast on behalf of the minority party, it punishes voters on the basis of expression and association. To create an effective gerrymander, the state classifies individuals by their affiliation with political partiesa fundamental free speech activitythen diminishes their ability to elect their preferred representatives. Supporters of the minority party can still cast ballots. But because of their political views, their votes are essentially meaningless.
Districts designed to dilute votes for the minority party punish voters on the basis of expression and association.
Kennedy has called this a burden on representational rights. Its also something much simpler: viewpoint discrimination. In performing a partisan gerrymander, the government penalizes people who express support for a disfavored partymuch like, in Tam, the government penalizes those who wish to trademark a disfavored phrase. Both state actions punish individuals on the basis of their viewpoints: If you back the minority party, your vote wont matter; if you give your band an offensive name, you cant trademark it. And even though neither action qualifies as outright censorship, both restrict the public expression of ideas that the First Amendment is meant to protect.
Packingham also includes a subtler gift to the Whitford plaintiffs. In an aside, Kennedy compared the North Carolina law unfavorably to a Tennessee measure that bars campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place. Unlike the North Carolina law, Kennedy explained, the Tennessee statute was enacted to protect another fundamental rightthe right to vote.
Perhaps this passage is just more loose rhetoricbut I doubt it. Fundamental rights receive heightened protection under the Constitution. And although most Americans would probably agree that voting is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has been cagey about saying so and inconsistent in safeguarding it. When the court upheld a voter ID law in 2008, for example, six justices paid lip service to the right to vote even as they shredded it; only the dissenting justices noted that the right is fundamental under the Constitution. Similarly, when the courts conservatives gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, they did not call the right to vote fundamental. Instead, they celebrated the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty, an archaic and discredited states rights doctrine. The upshot of that decision seemed to be that states rights are fundamental but voting rights are not.
Kennedy voted to uphold the voter ID law and kneecap the Voting Rights Act. But the justice is always evolving, and his aside in Packingham reads to me like a renewed commitment to the franchise set in the free speech context. If so, thats terrific news for opponents of partisan gerrymandering. Such gerrymandering limits an individuals fundamental right to vote (by making her vote useless) on the basis of her viewpoint (that is, her support for a political party). In effect, the practice attaches unconstitutional conditions to both voting rights and free speech, putting many voters in a quandary: They can either muffle their political viewpoints and cast meaningful ballots or express their political viewpoints and cast meaningless ballots. The Constitution does not permit states to punish individuals for exercising their rights in this manner.
Top Comment
America remains the world champion of free speech, an honorific I would not grant America in any other realm other than $$$$. More...
Unfortunately, these tea leaves do not indicate inevitable doom for partisan gerrymandering. Kennedy recently indicated concern about judicial intervention into the redistricting process, and in the past he has questioned whether courts can accurately gauge which gerrymanders go too far. The Whitford challengers believe they have the right tool to measure partisan gerrymanders, a mathematical formula called the efficiency gap. Nobody yet knows if Kennedy will agree, and the justice has sent mixed signalsits worth noting that he joined the courts conservatives in voting to stay the lower court decision in Whitford while the justices consider the case. (The court had ordered Wisconsin to redraw its maps.)
Still, Mondays decision indicates that Kennedy and the court are, at the very least, moving in the right direction on the issues at the heart of partisan gerrymandering. Free expression and association arent really free if the government can punish you for your viewpoint by ensuring your ballot doesnt matter; the right to vote isnt fundamental if it can be diluted on the basis of political affiliation. The basic First Amendment principles Kennedy espoused on Monday explain why the court may well curtail partisan gerrymandering next term. In fact, they explain why the Constitution demands nothing less.
Go here to see the original:
Does partisan gerrymandering violate the First Amendment? - Slate Magazine
- College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- China toughens environment law to target polluters [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- 1st Amendment - Laws [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- GBS205 Legal Environment -THE FIRST AMENDMENT - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Preview/Review #2 - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 26 - The First Amendment Speech II - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Scalia Ginsburg debate NSA and first amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Political Correctness vs First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 25 - The First Amendment -- Speech I - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- The First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- [USA] First Amendment abused - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- Cliven Bundy and the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Tees Co. Inc. FAT-Tee Intro Video of who we are, and what we stand for - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- University Attacks First Amendment Costs $50,000 Plus - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Lawsuit After '8theist' Vanity Plate Denied, 'Baptist' Approved - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group - Video [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- MSNBC: Marjorie Dannenfelser Discusses SBA List First Amendment Case - Video [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- United Church of Christ sues over North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Federal judge: Delayed access to court records raises First Amendment concerns [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Justices Troubled By Their Earlier Ruling On Public Employee Speech Rights [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Judge Won't Stop Jason Patric from Using Son's Name for Advocacy Purposes [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- PBL in Journalism I, 2014 - Video [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- John Dukes on First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Were Sterlings First Amendment Rights Violated? Nope. [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- What happened to Sterling was morally wrong [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- First Amendment common sense [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- The First Amendment Doesn't Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech - Video [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones - Video [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Sen. Ed Markey proposes eliminating free speech - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Alabama Chief Justice Stunning Legal Ignorance - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters. - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- "First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore - Video [Last Updated On: May 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 5th, 2014]
- Endangered Speeches - Video [Last Updated On: May 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 5th, 2014]
- First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse - Video [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- first amendment rights - Video [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- News media challenges ban on journalism drones [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT - Video [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- Letter: First Amendment rights trampled [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? - Video [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians - Video [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- 2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- .First Amendment protects political speech, not profanity - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- Charles "Chip" Babcock on Campaign Finance and the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment - RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) - Video [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- FBI Agents Harass Photographer: First Amendment Test - Video [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- History Project: First Amendment. - Video [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- SDG&E Challenges The First Amendment and Loses - Video [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 11th, 2014]
- Richmond City Council Uses Tricks to Undermine First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 11th, 2014]
- Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 12th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 12th, 2014]
- The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video [Last Updated On: May 12th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 12th, 2014]
- City Charter amendment passes 581-556 [Last Updated On: May 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2014]
- David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2014]
- Senator Chuck Schumer is against the First Amendment then and now - Video [Last Updated On: May 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2014]
- Facebook SUCKS! - Video [Last Updated On: May 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2014]
- Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- Reid backs campaign spending limit [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- Tennessee Boy Recites First Amendment Rights After Being Told to Put Away His Bible - Video [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- 'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2014]
- Reid Seeks To Change First Amendment To Stop Koch Brothers - Video [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2014]