SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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?

[cinyc]

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.”

[cinyc]

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?

[cinyc]

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?

It’s tied up in the “manner” of electing Congressmen.

From the Supreme Court’s Opinion:

“The Framers addressed the election of Representatives to Congress in the Elections Clause. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. That provision assigns to state legislatures the power to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for Members of Congress, while giving Congress the power to “make or alter” any such regulations. . . .

Congress has regularly exercised its Elections Clause power, including to address partisan gerrymandering. The Apportionment Act of 1842, which required singlemember districts for the first time, specified that those districts be “composed of contiguous territory,” Act of June 25, 1842, ch. 47, 5 Stat. 491, in “an attempt to forbid the practice of the gerrymander,” Griffith, supra, at 12. Later statutes added requirements of compactness and equality of population. Act of Jan. 16, 1901, ch. 93, §3, 31 Stat. 733; Act of Feb. 2, 1872, ch. 11, §2, 17 Stat. 28. (Only the single member district requirement remains in place today. 2 U. S. C. §2c.) See Vieth, 541 U. S., at 276 (plurality opinion). Congress also used its Elections Clause power in 1870, enacting the first comprehensive federal statute dealing with elections as a way to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. Force Act of 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. 140. Starting in the 1950s, Congress enacted a series of laws to protect the right to vote through measures such as the suspension of literacy tests and the prohibition of English- only elections. See, e.g., 52 U. S. C. §10101 et seq.

[cinyc]

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.

Gerrymandering is as old as the country itself. And it’s not a self-perpetuating issue. If it were, Democrats would not be in charge of the House, and the Virginia House and NYS Senate would not be controlled by the Democrats right now. Things change. Coalitions change. Gerrymanders become dummymanders.

Let’s not pretend Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and, to a lesser extent, Kagan are not died-in-the-wool partisans, ether.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

Wow. What a painful cell phone.

And New York?? The only thing Jerry Maynard there is the state senate lines, and very much to the benefit of Republicans

The State Assembly lines are "Jerry Maynard" for Democrats in NY. The NYS Legislature has traditionally run an incumbent protection racket, with each house drawing its own lines.

New York will have a commission draw the 2020s maps. It can be overriden by the legislature, but will likely require a supermajority for that to happen. That's probably not possible - but the 2020 elections will determine this. There's a practical limit on how many Upstate Republican seats can realistically be turned Dem without the Upstate map turning into a dummymander, anyway.

[cinyc]

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.

As I said before, whether to require equal population Congressional Districts should have been left to Congress, not the courts. I'm pretty sure Congress would pass a law requiring them today were the relevant precedent struck down, and arguably, the VRA has codified prior case law on this, anyway.

Nevertheless, equal population math is at least easy to figure out and thus justiciable. What's a "fair" map isn't all that easy to figure out. Any court-imposed standard would be arbitrary. Congress may write some rules, but courts are in a very poor position to make them up. Courts aren't legislatures.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

If you're outraged at partisan gerrymandering, consider my suggestion for rewriting the 14th Amendment. Part of what I have drafted says,

States shall adopt redistricting processes to assure that congressional, state, and local legislative districts will not be “gerrymandered.” Iowa’s Legislative Services Bureau is one example of a permissible redistricting process, or states may adopt independent redistricting commissions; using algorithms is encouraged, but the power to draw districts must be taken away from each state legislature.

Iowa's Legislative Services Bureau draws maps for congressional districts and state legislative districts every ten years, and that Bureau was given specific instructions -- by the Iowa legislature decades ago -- to keep partisan politics and the home addresses of the incumbents out of mind when drawing the maps.

Wouldn't you rather have something like that, or independent redistricting commissions, do all the district maps from now on? Support my proposal for rewriting the 14th Amendment. I drafted it purposely trying to achieve balance between conservative and liberal goals, views, and ideals.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. A simple law of Congress will do.

[cinyc]

You don't need a constitutional amendment. A simple law of Congress will do.

My amendment is going to a lot more than just deal with gerrymandering. In the meantime, it is not as "simple" to get Congress to pass a law as you think. There has been gerrymandering going on for a long time, and in all this time Congress has never lifted a finger to try to stop it. There's a Republican majority in the Senate, who may very well want to maintain the status quo.

If you can't pass a simple law, how do you propose to pass a constitutional amendment, which has to be passed by 2/3rds of each house of Congress and ratified by 3/4ths of the states?

[cinyc]

You don't need a constitutional amendment. A simple law of Congress will do.

My amendment is going to a lot more than just deal with gerrymandering. In the meantime, it is not as "simple" to get Congress to pass a law as you think. There has been gerrymandering going on for a long time, and in all this time Congress has never lifted a finger to try to stop it. There's a Republican majority in the Senate, who may very well want to maintain the status quo.

If you can't pass a simple law, how do you propose to pass a constitutional amendment, which has to be passed by 2/3rds of each house of Congress and ratified by 3/4ths of the states?

Via the Convention of State Project.

Which has to be called by two-thirds of the state legislatures and has never happened in US history.

Again, good luck with that.

[cinyc]

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.

Municipal boundaries are not arbitrary. The city or town you live in matters. You have more in common with those who live in that city - tax policy, schools, zoning and land use - that you do with the rural areas you’d like to disenfranchise in the name of “fairness”, which (as always) just means electing more Democrats.

“Fairness” = proportionality - except where it would help Republicans, like in Massachusetts. Then, a “fair” map is imposssible.

You’re showing your partisan colors. And that’s okay. Because we’re all partisans. Just admit it.