SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[Nyvin]

Florida's congressional and state senate redraws were based on a FL supreme court ruling. That type of result would remain? That's Robert's out right? To allow the states to police partisan gerrymandering?

Florida and Pennsylvania's redraws were both based on state laws/constitutions.    North Carolina and Virginia's redraws were both due to racial gerrymanders, not partisan gerrymanders.   All four should be safe from this ruling.

[Nyvin]

Roberts also says that States and Congress can act to combat gerrymandering.

so does that mean congress either passing a law banning partisan gerrymandering or passing a law requiring states to use non-partisan commissions would be allowable under this ruling?

Yes.

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

Well then why did Roberts take the exact opposite direction on the VRA and suddenly declare the standard set by Congress on section 5 is no longer valid??

That seems to fly in the face of your supposed legal argument.

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

Well then why did Roberts take the exact opposite direction on the VRA and suddenly declare the standard set by Congress on section 5 is no longer valid??

That seems to fly in the face of your supposed legal argument.

Section 5 dealt with preclearance, not the rules regarding minority-majority districts. The list of jurisdictions subject to it was very old, and didn’t reflect current reality. You can’t punish a state for practices that occurred 50 years ago. The Court didn’t say Congress couldn’t pass a new preclearance law that wasn’t arbitrary.

My “supposed” legal argument was the one that won at the Supreme Court.

So the court can pass a judgment on Section 5 being outdated but it can't pass a judgment on standards for gerrymandering.   It seems to be a double standard from what I'm seeing.

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

But that's not really an argument. The court has made decisions and established standards in lots of cases before this.

Would you have been happier had the courts adopted a rule that for a map to be “fair”, all cities must be kept whole to the maximum extent possible? How is that any less “fair” than the nonsensical we need proportional representation rules proposed by some of the plaintiffs? Nothing in the Consitution or federal law require either approach.

Nothing in the Constitution or Federal Law required a lot of Supreme Court decisions (without deep philosophical speak anyway) like Citizens United or Gay marriage.   That didn't stop them there.

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

Well then why did Roberts take the exact opposite direction on the VRA and suddenly declare the standard set by Congress on section 5 is no longer valid??

That seems to fly in the face of your supposed legal argument.

Section 5 dealt with preclearance, not the rules regarding minority-majority districts. The list of jurisdictions subject to it was very old, and didn’t reflect current reality. You can’t punish a state for practices that occurred 50 years ago. The Court didn’t say Congress couldn’t pass a new preclearance law that wasn’t arbitrary.

My “supposed” legal argument was the one that won at the Supreme Court.

So the court can pass a judgment on Section 5 being outdated but it can't pass a judgment on standards for gerrymandering.   It seems to be a double standard from what I'm seeing.

A court can strike down any federal law as unconstitutional. It can’t tell state legislatures how to do its constitutionally mandated Congressional redistricting. That’s up to the state legislatures - or Congress.

There are no standards for partisan Gerrymandering set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Gerrymandering is older than Elbridge Gerry or even the Constitution itself.

If the only guideline we have is what is in the US Constitution then what exactly is in the Constitution saying that Section 5 is unconstitutional? 

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

But that's not really an argument. The court has made decisions and established standards in lots of cases before this.

Would you have been happier had the courts adopted a rule that for a map to be “fair”, all cities must be kept whole to the maximum extent possible? How is that any less “fair” than the nonsensical we need proportional representation rules proposed by some of the plaintiffs? Nothing in the Consitution or federal law require either approach.

Nothing in the Constitution or Federal Law required a lot of Supreme Court decisions (without deep philosophical speak anyway) like Citizens United or Gay marriage.   That didn't stop them there.

Citizens United struck down a federal law as unconstitutional. That’s what the Supreme Court has done since Marbury v. Madison.

Please show me the provision of the constitution that specifically leaves political contributions or Gay marriage to the state legislatures, like redistricting. There isn’t one.

The provision of the Constitution for redistricting doesn't have prudence, as shown by the decision specifically saying Congress can act on gerrymandering.   

The reasoning behind striking down the laws was extremely skeptical.  I was just making a point you don't always need everything spelled out in black and white to make a court ruling.

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

But that's not really an argument. The court has made decisions and established standards in lots of cases before this.

Would you have been happier had the courts adopted a rule that for a map to be “fair”, all cities must be kept whole to the maximum extent possible? How is that any less “fair” than the nonsensical we need proportional representation rules proposed by some of the plaintiffs? Nothing in the Consitution or federal law require either approach.

Nothing in the Constitution or Federal Law required a lot of Supreme Court decisions (without deep philosophical speak anyway) like Citizens United or Gay marriage.   That didn't stop them there.

Citizens United struck down a federal law as unconstitutional. That’s what the Supreme Court has done since Marbury v. Madison.

Please show me the provision of the constitution that specifically leaves political contributions or Gay marriage to the state legislatures, like redistricting. There isn’t one.

The provision of the Constitution for redistricting doesn't have prudence, as shown by the decision specifically saying Congress can act on gerrymandering.   

The reasoning behind striking down the laws was extremely skeptical.  I was just making a point you don't always need everything spelled out in black and white to make a court ruling.

This is not some “decision” saying Congress can act on Gerrymandering - it’s the Constitution itself. From Article I, Section 4:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Where is "map drawing" spelled out there?  Or Redistricting?

[Nyvin]

So Roberts and Company decide that this is a matter left to the legislature in the States. And how are the legislators chosen? By a horribly gerrymandered system in States a b c d and e Etc. So the cure to the disease is warded by the disease itself. Brilliant.

Congratulations Republicans. You can't deal with democracy being on the perennially losing side of public opinion and the future, so you stole denomination of a moderate replacement to ensure your undemocratic cement on power.

2nd. Amendment. Remedies. Looks more necessary everyday I'm sorry to say

The U.S. Constitution specifically leaves Congressional redistricting solely to the State LEGISLATURES, not the Federal courts, absent instructions from Congress (which, outside of the VRA and ban on multi-member districts, don’t exist). That is a political question. The Constitution doesn’t require any specific rule for how states are to be redistricted - nor should any court impose one by fiat.

Your beef is with the state legislatures and Congress - both of which could impose standards if they wish.

What about Baker v. Carr, which explicitly held that cases involving redistricting were justiciable? That decision specifically placed the one man one vote rule on redrawing legislative districts.

One-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a “fair” map is not. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

There are any number of standards which have been advanced by scholars in recent years.

Which is precisely the problem - there are a number of standards, none of which are particularly more “fair” than the others. It’s up to the state legislatures and/or Congress to decide which is best - not the federal courts.

The legislators and Congress are directly constituted by the problem of gerrymandering. Do you not see this as a self-perpetuating issue?. Beyond that, please read the very well-reasoned descent. This is absolutely a justiciable issue. Let's not pretend that Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito or not dyed-in-the-wool partisans.

Yes, exactly.

Let's just wait for the North Carolina Republicans to pass a fair districting law.....oh wait, that'll literally never happen.

[Nyvin]

Let’s put this another way - Suppose Trump gets reelected and gets to appoint a whole lot of new judges in his second term. Do those of you who think some standard could have been made up by the court to determine what’s a partisan Gerrymander (which, like in VRA jurisprudence would most likely be some facts-and-circumstances test nonsense) trust Trump-appointed judges to not strike down Democratic maps while keeping Republican maps?

The courts are better left out of this whole issue.

You just gave the game away here, in that you’re projecting that the other side can’t possibly be doing this for anything other than narrow partisan interests.

Spoiler alert: They’re not. You didn’t hear Democrats complain about partisan Gerrymandering in the 1990s, when they drew most maps. Many of the 90s maps were “worse” than the most recent lot.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - there’s no such thing as nonpartisan Gerrymandering or a nonpartisan map. Redistricting is inherently political.

Democrats would have benefited from this, but only because Republicans have pulled things so far away from what anybody could reasonably call fair representation. But when all you’re interested in is power, not principle, it can be hard to tell the difference.

Again, what’s “fair” representation? As much as you and the plaintiffs want us to, the Constitution and current law doesn’t require proportional representation. Nor does it require creating “competitive” districts (whatever that means) or not splitting cities and other municipalities. It doesn’t require enacting incumbent protection rackets or (supposedly) nonpartisan maps or partisan Gerrymanders. All of this is up to the state legislatures to decide.

One system might be less fair than another...but let's at least settle that damn near ANYTHING is better than just letting legislators have free reign over the very system that elects them.

You're basically saying that since we can't create a perfect utopia we'll just have to settle for living in a poverty stricken ghetto.   

[Nyvin]

One system might be less fair than another...but let's at least settle that damn near ANYTHING is better than just letting legislators have free reign over the very system that elects them.

You're basically saying that since we can't create a perfect utopia we'll just have to settle for living in a poverty stricken ghetto.   

Again, your quarrel is with Congress and the state legislatures. You'd prefer judicial tyranny to the process that is outlined in the Constitution. Sorry. The Framers didn't leave Congressional redistricting up to the courts. They left it up to the state legislatures, absent specific instructions from Congress.

And what exactly is this ANYTHING that you are referring to? The nonsensical facts and circumstances tests that the Court likely would have imposed is worse. It would have lead to disparate outcomes in different states based on the political whims of different judges. Imposing any other particular standard would be arbitrary - what's "fair" to you is probably not "fair" to me. I think geography matters. You probably don't, because cracking cities helps get more Democrats elected.

The Supreme Court is not Congress or a state legislature.

Nearly every map that is drawn by a court is better than one drawn by a partisan legislature.   Considering there were circuit courts that felt comfortable striking down the maps I really don't think this is all as complicated as you make it out to be.

[Nyvin]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

Are you trying to suggest the map in NC doesn't impact the partisan distrubution of the seats???  Really?

[Nyvin]

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

Are you trying to suggest the map in NC doesn't impact the partisan distrubution of the seats???  Really?

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

Getting at least 5 dem seats in NC is extremely easy and wouldn't require special or obtuse districts.   A 6th might require slightly favored drawing in the Cumberland area.   

[Nyvin]

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

California is drawn by a nonpartisan commission and Massachusetts has unfavourable geography for Republicans. Maryland is a Democratic gerrymander, one of only two currently in place. You've completely missed the point.

What's your point?  If your position is that all states should have to move to non-partisan redistricting commissions then that's fine, but the Constitution gives zero authority for federal courts to affect such a transition.  If we're relying on a proportionality criterion to evaluate maps (which the NC plaintiff essentially was), then California is gerrymandered even if the map is a product of a non-partisan commission.

Saying states have "unfavorable geography" is subjective gobbledygook - there's no inherently "correct" district shape or partisan distribution independent of which subjective criteria one elevates when drawing a map.     

It's not gobbledygook....it is literally mathematically impossible to draw safe Republican seats in Massachusetts and achieve proportionality in California.   As long as voting districts are based on precincts and contiguity you do have to at least be able to "draw" the districts in some fashion.   It's not rocket science.

[Nyvin]

Getting at least 5 dem seats in NC is extremely easy and wouldn't require special or obtuse districts.   A 6th might require slightly favored drawing in the Cumberland area.   

But why do the Dems deserve five seats lol

You're relying on proportionality as a criterion without demonstrating why its superior to any other metric.  And even if it was "superior", the criteria to use when drawing districts would still be a political question, not a legal one.

Okay fine...The Democrats have proportionality on their side for increasing the number of their in the state.

What exactly is the Republican defense of their current map?   Why do "they" deserve 10 seats?   

You can't just say something isn't perfect and then stay with the status quo...you need to show why the status quo is "Better"