Supreme Court to hear case on partisan gerrymandering

[Meathead]

The Supreme Court declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, a potentially fundamental change in the way American elections are conducted.

The justices regularly are called to invalidate state electoral maps that have been illegally drawn to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes.

But the Supreme Court has never found a plan unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. If it does, it would have a revolutionary impact on the reapportionment that comes after the 2020 election and could come at the expense of Republicans, who control the process in the majority of states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-potentially-landmark-case-on-partisan-gerrymandering/2017/06/19/d525237e-5435-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.545c3def9556

thank god

maybe we can finally end this ridiculous scourge on american political fairness

the solution is computer generated districts. lets pray the sc pushes us in that direction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.ab7a0d096e3a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/?utm_term=.66fdcd33013d

[K-9]

 

The Supreme Court declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, a potentially fundamental change in the way American elections are conducted.

The justices regularly are called to invalidate state electoral maps that have been illegally drawn to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes.

But the Supreme Court has never found a plan unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. If it does, it would have a revolutionary impact on the reapportionment that comes after the 2020 election and could come at the expense of Republicans, who control the process in the majority of states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-potentially-landmark-case-on-partisan-gerrymandering/2017/06/19/d525237e-5435-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.545c3def9556

thank god

maybe we can finally end this ridiculous scourge on american political fairness

the solution is computer generated districts. lets pray the sc pushes us in that direction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.ab7a0d096e3a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/?utm_term=.66fdcd33013d

 

And I'd be surprised if this Supreme Court did anything different.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Gerrymandering isn't a problem, and it is much more feature than flaw.

 

The electoral map is designed in order to capture largely homogenous groups of voters such that those homogenous groups can select Representatives who uniquely represent their political beliefs. They were not designed to capture a microcosm of the national population, or even a microcosm of an individual state.

 

There is a reason House elections are by district rather than state wide.

Edited June 19, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Sounds to me like the Democrats attempting to make more states blue, more than anything else. If you include large cities in districts with rural areas, you definitely achieve that goal.

[boyst]

The article written as gerrymandering is a conclusion shows bias.

 

The sc is deciding if it is gerrymandering. NC is the best state ever

Gerrymandering isn't a problem, and it is much more feature than flaw.

 

The electoral map is designed in order to capture largely homogenous groups of voters such that those homogenous groups can select Representatives who uniquely represent their political beliefs. They were not designed to capture a microcosm of the national population, or even a microcosm of an individual state.

 

There is a reason House elections are by district rather than state wide.

The liberal belief that minorities need to be used to water down hard core GOP districts is laughable but exists. That's what happened in NC's eastern coast.

[Azalin]

I like how the OP uses the phrase "Partisan Gerrymandering". Is this as opposed to "Bipartisan Gerrymandering"?

[K-9]

I like how the OP uses the phrase "Partisan Gerrymandering". Is this as opposed to "Bipartisan Gerrymandering"?

I think it means that both parties have indulged in the practice. It's specifically designed to give one party or an incumbent an advantage over the opposition. Might be the most partisan practice there is. It would be nice if we could just stick to redrawing districts every 10 years after the census has been completed.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

If Gerrymandering is remapping certain areas to capture the most of one political party (or the other) then I think it's wrong.

 

County by county or in some cases by Zip Code if the county is that large.

jmo

Edited June 19, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan

[Doc Brown]

I like how the OP uses the phrase "Partisan Gerrymandering". Is this as opposed to "Bipartisan Gerrymandering"?

 

He's just quoting the title of the article. Here's the numbers the Supreme Court will be looking at after Wisconsin redrew the lines in 2010 after having complete Republican control of the state for the first time in 40 years. I don't know enough about Wisconsin to have an opinion on it.

 

"2012, Republicans won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote for Assembly candidates but captured 60 of the Assembly’s 99 seats. In 2014, 52 percent of the vote yielded 63 seats."

[Azalin]

I think it means that both parties have indulged in the practice. It's specifically designed to give one party or an incumbent an advantage over the opposition. Might be the most partisan practice there is. It would be nice if we could just stick to redrawing districts every 10 years after the census has been completed.

 

Yes, that's exactly what it means. To me, the phrase "partisan gerrymandering" implies that non-partisan gerrymandering is an actual thing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of it before.

 

 

 

He's just quoting the title of the article. Here's the numbers the Supreme Court will be looking at after Wisconsin redrew the lines in 2010 after having complete Republican control of the state for the first time in 40 years. I don't know enough about Wisconsin to have an opinion on it.

 

"2012, Republicans won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote for Assembly candidates but captured 60 of the Assembly’s 99 seats. In 2014, 52 percent of the vote yielded 63 seats."

 

Yeah, I should have clarified that. I know meathead's just quoting the article. Adding the word "partisan" appears to me to be a poor attempt at spin. As far as I know, all states do it, and both parties do it. By all appearances, it seems to have at least some legitimacy in defining state legislatures.

[unbillievable]

How do you subjectively draw a district line?

 

Do you do it geographically or by population density? By school?

 

Do we make it a grid?

 

I want to know what people think. What's the solution? Should they institute a neighborhood draft, block by block?

[boyst]

This is a bull **** issue.

 

The entire population of, say, Charlotte is one demographic and if those high fallutin city folk get lumped in with Matthews than they have a shifted spectrum. Lets even say Matthews gets run up to Monroe. More people live in Matthews. But more area is in Monroe. Should Monroe not be allowed to have a say which represents their country lifestyle and heavy ag interests whilst not worrying about the representation building a city park 20 minutes away with a new 4 lane highway to save the city folks from traffic?

How do you subjectively draw a district line?

 

Do you do it geographically or by population density? By school?

 

Do we make it a grid?

 

I want to know what people think. What's the solution? Should they institute a neighborhood draft, block by block?

everyone pooled together by their first name and hair color.

[TakeYouToTasker]

How do you subjectively draw a district line?

 

Do you do it geographically or by population density? By school?

 

Do we make it a grid?

 

I want to know what people think. What's the solution? Should they institute a neighborhood draft, block by block?

Again, congressional districts are supposed to be as homogenous as possible, such that the people in a given area have their views represented in the House.

 

The concept of districts intends that they not be comprised of lots of balanced and competing political interests. If they had been intended that way, they would be conducted as statewide elections.

Edited June 19, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

This issue also drives a further wedge amd was to Hyper partisanship

[Doc Brown]

How do you subjectively draw a district line?

 

Do you do it geographically or by population density? By school?

 

Do we make it a grid?

 

I want to know what people think. What's the solution? Should they institute a neighborhood draft, block by block?

 

Well, 13 states thirteen states determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan redistricting commission to take it out of the state legislative bodies hand to avoid or at least appear to avoid gerrymandering that both parties use to their advantage. Each of those states differ on how the committee is selected so it's likely their is still politics being played.

They go by census data as the constitution requires that each congressional district must have the same (or close to it) number of people. That's about it. The ideal state would have an equal representation of the population percentage by race and ethnicity in each district. Never going to happen though as you're going to have many more minorities in the city compared to the suburbs and rural areas.

[boyst]

Well, 13 states thirteen states determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan redistricting commission to take it out of the state legislative bodies hand to avoid or at least appear to avoid gerrymandering that both parties use to their advantage. Each of those states differ on how the committee is selected so it's likely their is still politics being played.

They go by census data as the constitution requires that each congressional district must have the same (or close to it) number of people. That's about it. The ideal state would have an equal representation of the population percentage by race and ethnicity in each district. Never going to happen though as you're going to have many more minorities in the city compared to the suburbs and rural areas.

how can you equalize race, ethnicity? I don't think those two matter as much as education level or income.

 

I don't want some city hybrid driving fruit loop having equal say to me as much as he probably doesn't want me to say for him

[Koko78]

How do you subjectively draw a district line?

 

Do you do it geographically or by population density? By school?

 

Do we make it a grid?

 

I want to know what people think. What's the solution? Should they institute a neighborhood draft, block by block?

 

The problem is that district map-drafters have to try to do it by population, as the House is supposed to be relatively equal representation of the people.

[Doc Brown]

how can you equalize race, ethnicity? I don't think those two matter as much as education level or income.

 

I don't want some city hybrid driving fruit loop having equal say to me as much as he probably doesn't want me to say for him

You can't. That's the problem and it will always be a problem.

[B-Man]

Prof. Ann Althouse:

 

The Supreme Court announced that it will review the 3-judge district court decision that struck down Wisconsin's redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.

SCOTUSblog reports:

The lower court also ordered the state to create a new redistricting plan by the fall, but a deeply divided Supreme Court today put that order on hold. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which is likely to come next year, will almost certainly be a major one that could affect redistricting efforts for decades to come.

 

 

The Court has never found an instance of political gerrymandering to violate the Constitution and has never fixed upon a specific doctrinal test. In fact, it has come close to consigning the issue to the "political question" doctrine, making it one of those supposed problems of constitutional law that are left to other branches of government to take care of. From the last time the Court looked at the issue (2004), there are 2 Justices on the Court today who signed on to an opinion sketching out what the test should be (Ginsburg and Breyer), one Justice who thought it should be called a political question (Thomas), and one Justice who wouldn't say it was a political question or say exactly what the test should be (Kennedy).

It's quite possible that we'll end up with another mushy decision, stating no test but saying that the particular instance of redistricting doesn't violate whatever the test would be. That would just repeat the 2004 pattern, with Ginsburg and Breyer getting the votes of Kagan and Sotomayor and articulating some kind of doctrinal test, Kennedy agreeing with them only to say that the question is justiciable (i.e., not within the "political question" doctrine), and Thomas still saying it's a political question and joined perhaps by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch (or those 3 could go along with Kennedy). That is, I expect the Wisconsin redistricting plan to be found constitutional and the question to remain justiciable and still not governed by a specified test.

 

 

 

As SCOTUSblog notes, the Court has already decided that the state can use the new districting, and that was a decision that included as a factor a determination that the state is "likely to succeed on the merits." In other words, the state is likely to win.

 

{snip}

 

 

As I said when I wrote that in January of this year, "if Hillary Clinton had won the election and had the Supreme Court appointment to make, the new Democratic-Party-favoring test may very well have become the law."

 

 

 

 

 

 

and THAT...........is why electing a doofus such as The Donald was the right move when we were left with the choices we were.

[unbillievable]

Again, congressional districts are supposed to be as homogenous as possible, such that the people in a given area have their views represented in the House.

 

The concept of districts intends that they not be comprised of lots of balanced and competing political interests. If they had been intended that way, they would be conducted as statewide elections.

 

 

Well, 13 states thirteen states determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan redistricting commission to take it out of the state legislative bodies hand to avoid or at least appear to avoid gerrymandering that both parties use to their advantage. Each of those states differ on how the committee is selected so it's likely their is still politics being played.

They go by census data as the constitution requires that each congressional district must have the same (or close to it) number of people. That's about it. The ideal state would have an equal representation of the population percentage by race and ethnicity in each district. Never going to happen though as you're going to have many more minorities in the city compared to the suburbs and rural areas.

 

The only consensus seems to be that each district have an equal number of people. There isn't a law that outlines how to divide the population into these smaller groups.

 

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court can rule on a law that doesn't exist. Here's an idea; does a district even have to be connected, or can you carve up a city like swiss cheese.