Article The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is within bounds of the Constitution (1 Viewer)

mikaloyd

minion_patriot_drinker
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
9,064
Location
Oildale CA
Offline
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html


States can pass laws against gerrymandering but do not have to do so. In essence politicians get some freedom to pick their voters rather than voters choosing their politicians. I wonder, overall, which party will this favor going forward? Or will it eventually balance out despite the tortured voting district maps
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
31,297
Reaction score
19,089
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
Both are guilty but the Republicans seem much worse from what I know. I guess since fixing the game is on the table, might as well take advantage when your party is in power. Terrible though. What a Supreme Court failing.
It's being discussed in the other SCOTUS thread. It's a failing of our politicians. SCOTUS argued that the case before them was a political question, and thus it's outside their jurisdiction. It's not what we like to hear, but it looks to be the correct decision.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,340
Reaction score
18,174
Offline
A missed opportunity to take a rotten political tactic off the table going forward so that neither party can take advantage. Benefits Republicans in the short term, though, make no mistake about that.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
31,297
Reaction score
19,089
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
A missed opportunity to take a rotten political tactic off the table going forward so that neither party can take advantage. Benefits Republicans in the short term, though, make no mistake about that.
I guess, but it's not within SCOTUS' purview to take off of the table. Otherwise they end up becoming a political arm of the government, which wasn't the founders of our government intended for the the Court. Voters and politicians need to address this at the state level if there's any hope of changing the law.
 

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,960
Age
57
Offline
I don’t understand how this doesn’t violate the 1 person 1 vote principle. North Carolina explicitly said they drew the maps to disadvantage the Democrats. Would it be legal to have non-contiguous districts? If so, it seems like you could assure no more than 1 person ever wins from the opposite party. A state could literally have 99% Democrats, if non-contiguous is allowed, then I could still draw a map to guarantee it only gets 1 Democratic representative. Where do you draw the line?
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
15,239
Age
44
Offline
I guess, but it's not within SCOTUS' purview to take off of the table. Otherwise they end up becoming a political arm of the government, which wasn't the founders of our government intended for the the Court. Voters and politicians need to address this at the state level if there's any hope of changing the law.
I don't buy it. They could have found a way to strike this down and not get heavily involved in the political process of redistricting. They chose not to. Not the right decision.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
31,297
Reaction score
19,089
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
I don't buy it. They could have found a way to strike this down and not get heavily involved in the political process of redistricting. Not the right decision.
I don't see how. What rationale can they use to intervene in this case?
 
OP
mikaloyd

mikaloyd

minion_patriot_drinker
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
9,064
Location
Oildale CA
Offline
I don’t understand how this doesn’t violate the 1 person 1 vote principle. North Carolina explicitly said they drew the maps to disadvantage the Democrats. Would it be legal to have non-contiguous districts? If so, it seems like you could assure no more than 1 person ever wins from the opposite party. A state could literally have 99% Democrats, if non-contiguous is allowed, then I could still draw a map to guarantee it only gets 1 Democratic representative. Where do you draw the line?
Non contiguous districts already exist. This one happens to be in a mostly Democratic Party State

 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
15,239
Age
44
Offline
I don't see how. What rationale can they use to intervene in this case?
That gerrymandering violates basic principles of our democratic process that citizens choose their representatives and not the other way around. This wasn't about being fair to the "other" political party (which is apparently how the SC considered the question). It's about the corrosive nature of gerrymandering on representation and the political process.

Not that hard to come up with the rational to not allow it. They didn't have to dictate how districts are drawn, just that gerrymandering isn't allowed.
 
OP
mikaloyd

mikaloyd

minion_patriot_drinker
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
9,064
Location
Oildale CA
Offline
I cant complain about how California districts are drawn really, there may be a few shenanigans in Los Angeles area, but not more than a few blocks.

The main problem with any block of voters getting no representation here is in the electoral college votes which are winner take all for the whole State rather than splitting them by district or some other means
 

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,960
Age
57
Offline
I cant complain about how California districts are drawn really, there may be a few shenanigans in Los Angeles area, but not more than a few blocks.

The main problem with any block of voters getting no representation here is in the electoral college votes which are winner take all for the whole State rather than splitting them by district or some other means
Splitting by district would exacerbate the problem in states with terrible gerrymandering. At least winner takes all assures that the majority wins.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom