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Roberts take the exact opposite direction on the VRA and suddenly declare the standard set by Congress on section 5 is no longer valid??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So the court can pass a judgment on Section 5 being outdated but it can't pass a judgment on standards for gerrymandering.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.
hard and arbitrary are different things.
