Friday round-up

At The Wall Street Journals Law Blog, Jess Bravin reports that Hawaii may figure prominently in the Courts decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, the Texas one person, one vote case, because for nearly half a century, the Aloha State has had the high courts permission to ignore transients when drawing its political maps. And at FiveThirtyEight, Leah Libresco highlights a potential problem with the relief that the challengers in the case are seeking: The trouble is, we dont have robust statistics on the number of eligible voters. If the Supreme Court were to set new standards for districting, we would need to overhaul the nations statistics and surveys.

Briefly:

• Sahil Kapur of Bloomberg Politics reports that [a] new analysis of a Republican proposal to temporarily continue Obamacare premium subsidies if the Supreme Court erases them warns that it would only delay the onset of higher insurance premiums and loss of coverage for potentially millions of Americans.
• The Constitutional Accountability Center continues its series on the Roberts Court in its tenth Term with a post from David Gans on the Courts First Amendments jurisprudence.
• In The Economist, Steven Mazie discusses the recent vote in Ireland in favor of same-sex marriage and what, if anything, it might mean for the Supreme Courts decision in the pending challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.
• At Bill of Health, Rachel Sachs discusses Tuesdays opinion in Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, holding that a belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to the induced infringement of that patent.