"washington journal" on the justice department's investigation of hillary clinton's emails. this is lawrence hurley who reports on the supreme court for writers here to talk about some of the decisions that came down yesterday. one of those decisions. with the idea of political gerrymandering , can you tell us what the court was asked to consider? >> these were linked cases that could have put limits on to what extent state lawmakers can take into account their own partisan preferences when drawing electoral district. it could have affected elections for years to come. the court issued a narrow decision that sent the cases back to a lower court. they did not say anything about the bigger question of whether there should be limits on this although many election reform type people think it is a big deal. this issue is going to continue to simmer. there is another case from north

carolina that the court could take up in the next couple of weeks. host: wisconsin being one of those decisions, maryland, can you generalize what is going on in each of those? guest: in wisconsin, democrats challenged a state legislative district john by republicans -- drawn by republicans. the court said they did not have legal standing to sue because they did not have plaintiffs in every district. the court sent that case back on the standing issue. they did not get into the legal merits over whether this legal theory the democrats had to be workable in the court. is, it is suchn a political issue. people are going to accuse judges of being biased. the courts are reluctant to get involved. they need to have a workable standard they can implement across the board that will be seen as favoring democrats or republicans. so far the court looks like it has not come upon a theory they can get five votes four out of

nine justices. in the maryland case, this was just one congressional district john by democrats and challenged by republicans. the court said the plaintiffs had not shown enough to block that district, that will continue in lower course. host: in the general sense, what is the history of the supreme court when it comes to the decisions? purely political, what position have a taken before? often takes upt cases of racial gerrymandering rawne district are d 2pac minority voters into a single district. when it comes to partisan gerrymandering, it is an issue the court has been reluctant to get involved in. justice kennedy, the swing justice on the nine justice court, said in a previous decision that he was leaving the door open to maybe allowing it in the future.

in these cases yesterday, justice kennedy was completely silent. the court was unanimous in both cases. we are no closer to knowing whether they want to get their toe in that water. did they take these cases in the first place, because they get thousands, they take these in than they make the decision they do? >> this was a difficult one because gerrymandering cases, but the court in different ways that i normal case. there is more a need for them to hear the case and decided. in some ways they don't have much choice, they have to take these cases. for the election reform advocates, the good news yesterday is that the court did not say, no we can't hear these cases which is what they could of done. they could have shut the door entirely and said it is not something the court can decide. if politicians or voters think it is that they should find a way to solve it. host: political gerrymandering with one of those cases you took

place at the supreme court. --ll talk about our about it with our guest or related issues. you can call in (202) 748-8000. for republicans. fort republicans -- for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for independents (202) 748-8002. what was the breakdown on boats? guest: going in it seemed like it would be a 5-4 decision. likely to bemore in favor of staffing and conservatives less likely. hey were unanimous on the vote to send this wisconsin case back and overturn the ruling that said the districts drawn by republicans or thrown out. the same thing in the maryland case. there were different opinions the justices wrote and the liberal justices did write their

opinion with a made it clear they are more sympathetic to this issue. the question is whether they can get justice kennedy to go along with them. host: it is always hard to see how the justices will react. when the arguments took place for this case, did you get a sense this might be the result? >> it looked like it was a close thing. justice kennedy did not really tip his hand one way or another. with the maryland case it was very clear they were reluctant to delve in. host: with the north carolina case you mentioned, can you set up the contours of that state's dilemma and how it leads to the larger issue of gerrymandering? more: north carolina is interesting because it is districts drawn by republicans that have been challenged by democrats. this would be the congressional districts. the theory is a little different to wisconsin. they do have plaintiffs in every district which is the thing the

court faulted wisconsin for not having. there is reason to think maybe the court, this is a better case for the court to get in on if they want to. the court could just say next week, we are going to send this case back for a do over in light of what i will yesterday. host: our guest is was thus -- is with us until 8:30. cliff is in flint, michigan. you're up with lawrence hurley of reuters. caller: good morning. i don't have a question. my opinion is that gerrymandering is used by both to create a we know majority for their party. i think it is about time for the united states supreme court to this is actually illegal

voterssomething so that can be better represented rather than being steered into districts against their will. guest: that is exactly right. both parties do gerrymandering when they have control. the maryland case we just talked about was democrats joined the district, trying to diminish the votes of republicans. the case in wisconsin was the other way around. the question is, is anyone going to be willing to step in and resolve this. politicians who control states may be reluctant to do that if it means they are going to lose their power. host: dennis, good morning from pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. in the north carolina case, republicans openly brag that

they drew those districts so there would be 10 republicans and three democrats. they also openly brag that had they had a way to do it they would have drawn them so there would be 11 republicans and only two democrats. i am from pennsylvania, and we just had the state supreme court redraw the districts here because the republicans had done exactly the same thing where we had 13 republicans for two straight elections, three straight elections, and only five democrats. actually more of a democrat slightly state, get they had rigged it so there would be 70% of the u.s. representatives would be republicans. i want the districts drawn so that there is -- that you get to choose your representative and set of them choosing you.

i don't want to see gerrymandering. there needs to be something done to stop its of the sisters are aren just -- districts drawn just as districts not to give a party on advantage. guest: what is interesting about north carolina is, they have previously been faulted by the supreme court for doing racial gerrymandering. when they drew these districts they said they were not doing racial gerrymandering, we are going to do is purely on partisan grounds. at that time there was no indication the supreme court get involved. now that it has, there is an irony where the supreme court could end up using some of that evidence that the state used to say they weren't doing racial gerrymandering to show they were doing partisan gerrymandering. in pennsylvania there was an interesting case as well. the republican drawn districts were thrown out by the state supreme court. it was done on states lock around. which means that the states laws

-- states laws grant. the supreme court had no authority to intervene because there was no issued a result. host: is part of the difficulty that the constitution has to address all these and is there not a's that of the -- guest: if you are a plaintiff filing a lawsuit, what do you sue under? equal protection, first amendment, the courts have not figured out a test they can use to say, i have been hurt by this, how do i get a remedy that results is claims? host: racial gerrymandering would take a different track i imagine? guest: there is a long tradition of the court getting involved in that. that theory does not really apply in the same way too partisan gerrymandering. host: here is anne in the tampa, florida. caller: i want to thank you for taking my call. i wanted to -- i never really

understood much of the detail about gerrymandering. there was -- here is my two-part question. the supreme court and partisan gerrymandering, when it comes to issues, he just mentioned -- california just had something on the ballot about splitting up their entire state. host: she dropped. guest: it makes me think -- it is true that in california and several other states they have set up these independent commissions to draw the line. the supreme court has okayed. in those states, in theory at least, you have a nonpartisan group that draw the lines which may be can limit the impact of gerrymandering. host: could the states argue this is purely a state's rights

issue on how we divide district in our state and why should the supreme court enter into that? guest: under the constitution it is said that state legislations can draw district in each state. the states have a big say. host: i am always interested in neil gorsuch and how he responded to both of these cases, could you break that down? guest: unusually for him, because he has written a lot of opinions, he did not say anything on these cases yesterday. in theority opinion wisconsin case was written by the chief justice. it seemed like the chief justice get a strong vote without any dissent. trying to issue his narrow decision. it seems like he did that. again, (202) 748-8001. for republicans.