SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[Slander and/or Libel]

What a spineless nonsensical decision.

Seriously. This is absurd.

[Slander and/or Libel]

What a spineless nonsensical decision.

Seriously. This is absurd.

I don't think there is anything spineless or absurd about it. I'm just reading the Syllabus so far, and here is, for me, the most persuasive part of why partisan gerrymandering is non-justiciable.

Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Such claims invariably sound in a desire for proportional representation, but the Constitution does not require proportional representation, and federal courts are neither equipped nor authorized to apportion political power as a matter of fairness. It is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context. It may mean achieving a greater number of competitive districts by undoing packing and cracking so that supporters of the disadvantaged party have a better shot at electing their preferred candidates. But it could mean engaging in cracking and packing to ensure each party its “appropriate” share of “safe” seats. Or perhaps it should be measured by adherence to “traditional” districting criteria. Deciding among those different visions of fairness poses basic questions that are political, not legal. There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments.

 It's is cowardice plain and simple. If you're a Democrat or Republican voter and your statewide representation has been diluted because those in power want to draw their own maps with a partisan advantage, it is cowardly of the Supreme Court to simply allow that because they're uneasy with setting limits. So let's allow the greater harm to go forward because we side with power instead of people and we're too dumb or simply refuse to figure out how to remedy this injustice.

 The Supreme Court has become a cowardly court that punts every time. And when it comes to voting which is the most fundamental aspect of a supposed Democracy the recent courts have been the worst.

Right. If there’s a wrong being done and remedies would be complex, it’s the court’s job to help ensure that those remedies address the wrong, not just throw their hands up and say it would be too hard.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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?

Who knows? Didn't Roberts rule against Arizona's use of a non-partisan commission?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

Nobody said we need proportional representation. They said that gerrymandering to the extremes taken in some states denies the citizens of their right to the representation they choose.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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 court finds that the way a legislature is doing its redistricting violates the rights of the citizens, then yes, the court CAN tell state legislatures they can't do it that way. Again, that's exactly what happened in Baker v Carr.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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 court finds that the way a legislature is doing its redistricting violates the rights of the citizens, then yes, the court CAN tell state legislatures they can't do it that way. Again, that's exactly what happened in Baker v Carr.

CONGRESS can tell the legislature what to do, not the Supreme Court - as the constitution provides. The Supreme Court is not the legislature.

VRA jurisprudence is a mess. Do you really want the courts to wade int partisan Gerrymandering, too?

So you’re ignoring Baker v Carr?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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 court finds that the way a legislature is doing its redistricting violates the rights of the citizens, then yes, the court CAN tell state legislatures they can't do it that way. Again, that's exactly what happened in Baker v Carr.

CONGRESS can tell the legislature what to do, not the Supreme Court - as the constitution provides. The Supreme Court is not the legislature.

VRA jurisprudence is a mess. Do you really want the courts to wade int partisan Gerrymandering, too?

So you’re ignoring Baker v Carr?

I’m not a fan of Baker v. Carr - in my opinion, that was up to Congress to decide, not the courts.

But again, one-man one-vote is a justiciable standard. What’s a partisan Gerrymander is often in the eye of the beholder. You correctly said that there are a number of possible standards for “fairness”. How is a court supposed to choose which to use in which case? I think maps keeping cities whole are “fair”. You might think maps are only fair if you pack and crack for “competitiveness”. Who is correct?

You’re not arguing that it’s nonjusticiable. You’re just arguing it’s hard.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

So if Republicans captured the state legislature and drew maps that were extremely unevenly balanced by population to preserve Republican hegemony no matter the Democratic share of the vote (say out of 13 districts, 12 were, like, super conservative small towns and the 13th was the rest of the state), that would be fine because it came from the state legislature? What do you think representation is?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

So if Republicans captured the state legislature and drew maps that were extremely unevenly balanced by population to preserve Republican hegemony no matter the Democratic share of the vote (say out of 13 districts, 12 were, like, super conservative small towns and the 13th was the rest of the state), that would be fine because it came from the state legislature? What do you think representation is?

Yup - that's fine, absent a law to the contrary. As long as these Congressional districts are of near equal population and follow the VRA (if required), the courts should butt out. As it would be if, say, Democrats captured the state legislature and drew maps that were unevenly balanced to "preserve Democratic hegemony" - whatever that means.

If you don't like it, call your Congressman to impose a national standard or organize to vote out your state legislators in redistricting years. This shouldn't be up to the courts, who are very poor at and shouldn't be making policy judgments.

We don't live in a proportional parliamentary system - and I'm very thankful for that.

What do I think a "fair" map is - one that keeps cities, counties and municipalities completely whole to the maximum extent possible. But you and the plaintiffs seem to think we should live in a proportional system and compensate for urban Democratic self-packing by giving cities far much more representation than they deserve in the name of "competitiveness". Who's right - well, that's for the legislature to decide, not the federal courts.

The requirement that districts be equally populated didn’t come from the legislature. You know this, and you’ve ignored it.

Anyway, you’re making pretty clear that your conception of representation is just grabbing whatever isn’t nailed down.

[Slander and/or Libel]

F*** it! It's time for Democrats to gerrymander the f*** out of the states they have the ability to. Then a case like this will come back to the Supreme Court and get ruled the other way. It's our only option now. F*** the high road!

Buddy, you already are. Democrats aren’t some pure, peaceful party: if they can do something, they will. Maryland, California, New York, and a dozen other states have been gerrymandered. For literally decades, the Republicans never had a house majority because of gerrymandering.

That being said, this ruling would be much better if not disingenuous in scope, with perhaps an exception for Gorsuch.

California is redistricting by a neutral commission.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Do we feel that there is an implication that congress be in some way representative of its constituents? What can that possibly mean if the only people capable of changing those rules are the ones who owe their power to the rules as they are?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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. 

You're defining "egregious" there to prize geography and arbitrary municipal boundaries over representing actual human beings.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Should it be permissible in our system for a state legislature to draw its own district boundaries, which entrench its power regardless of the collective desires of its constituents, and then tell those constituents, against whose opinions the legislature has shielded itself, that their only recourse is to appeal to that very legislature? That’s absolutely absurd.