Supreme Court could eliminate Gerrymandering

[Enduro]

Don't eliminate gerrymandering because it could benefit you, do it because it's not right.

I want to eliminate gerrymandering because it benefits Republicans, which is not right.

Gerrymandering needs to be eliminated if it benefits anyone, not just Republicans.

Considering Republicans would be complaining if it was Democrats in the same position they're in now I believe both sides only care if it's hurting them at the moment.

Exactly, and that is what's not right.

[krazen1211]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

Sam Wang has put together a three point test that doesn't rely on shape, but rather on comparing the expected delegation given the vote to a Monte Carlo delegation selected from across all of the districts in the country. It's a little complicated, but pretty interesting to dive into.

I think it is very stupid to ignore political reality, especially after the last election.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

Sam Wang has put together a three point test that doesn't rely on shape, but rather on comparing the expected delegation given the vote to a Monte Carlo delegation selected from across all of the districts in the country. It's a little complicated, but pretty interesting to dive into.

Sam Wrong sounds like a very stupid fellow.

Why?  Naive perhaps, like most people who think taking on gerrymandering isn't a case of whack-a-mole, but why specifically "very stupid" other than his plan is less advantageous to your politics than the current system?

[krazen1211]

It's not possible to eliminate gerrymandering as long as we use districts (or even states) as the the basis for electing representatives.

Egregious gerrymandering. Someone can probably always say a map is slightly biased in one way or another, but given a Clinton win, the Supreme Court could very well put an end to even moderate partisan gerrymanders by the time the next round of redistricting is up. There are a couple of reasonable tests already making their way to the USSC, and even Kennedy has said he is open to taking on gerrymandering.

Sam Wang has put together a three point test that doesn't rely on shape, but rather on comparing the expected delegation given the vote to a Monte Carlo delegation selected from across all of the districts in the country. It's a little complicated, but pretty interesting to dive into.

Sam Wrong sounds like a very stupid fellow.

Why?  Naive perhaps, like most people who think taking on gerrymandering isn't a case of whack-a-mole, but why specifically "very stupid" other than his plan is less advantageous to your politics than the current system?

Well, for the purposes of discussion, I will set aside the fact that Sam Wang predicted a 99% chance of a certain election outcome and swung and missed (after doing something substantially similar in 2014).

I will also set aside the fact that the 2016 Trumpification means leftists are not going to have their people dominating the court system.

I will merely point out the 2016 Trumpification has made it extremely easy to counter Sam Wang's nonsensical tactical scheme. All we have to do is dissolve the VRA and gerrymander all congressional districts across 50 (or is it 57?) states, and we defeat his formula.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I suppose I should have known you were trolling, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, this is not USGD, and certainly not the 2016 / 2020 boards. The abrasive style tolerated there is not tolerated here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All we have to do is dissolve the VRA and gerrymander all congressional districts across 50 (or is it 57?) states, and we defeat his formula.

I presume since you mentioned 57 States that he's argued in favor of giving the territories a say in who governs them. I can understand why from your political viewpoint you would find that to be a negative, but that only gets us to 56 States unless he's also advocated something like splitting California in two.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All we have to do is dissolve the VRA and gerrymander all congressional districts across 50 (or is it 57?) states, and we defeat his formula.

I presume since you mentioned 57 States that he's argued in favor of giving the territories a say in who governs them. I can understand why from your political viewpoint you would find that to be a negative, but that only gets us to 56 States unless he's also advocated something like splitting California in two.

This tool has to know that full VRA repeal = modern day Dred Scott = secession crisis/2nd Civil War within 4 years, right?

No.  Possibly he might hope for it, but the idea that full VRA repeal would equal all of those is about as left hyperbolic as he usually is right hyperbolic.  In any case, I get the distinct impression that neither of you understand what is in the remainder of the VRA that wasn't gutted by the finding that section 4 preclearance was using an outdated standard.

[politicallefty]

All we have to do is dissolve the VRA and gerrymander all congressional districts across 50 (or is it 57?) states, and we defeat his formula.

I presume since you mentioned 57 States that he's argued in favor of giving the territories a say in who governs them. I can understand why from your political viewpoint you would find that to be a negative, but that only gets us to 56 States unless he's also advocated something like splitting California in two.

This tool has to know that full VRA repeal = modern day Dred Scott = secession crisis/2nd Civil War within 4 years, right?

No.  Possibly he might hope for it, but the idea that full VRA repeal would equal all of those is about as left hyperbolic as he usually is right hyperbolic.  In any case, I get the distinct impression that neither of you understand what is in the remainder of the VRA that wasn't gutted by the finding that section 4 preclearance was using an outdated standard.

I only saw his post (not the immediate quote, but the source quote) through your quotes as I don't bother with trolls like that suddenly return after a positive result, but I wonder how amenable he'll be to gerrymandering if Democrats do in 2018 what Republicans did in 2010. Electoral victory in this country is very fleeting. No one could have imagined 2006 in 2004 or 2010 in 2008. Democrats were at a generational peak in 2009 and it all came crashing down in 2010. It could easily be a mirror next time, with Democrats doing great in the House and at the state level, while suffering a degree of disappointment in the Senate. The governorships in this next midterm are all-important to redistricting after the 2020 Census.

[krazen1211]

All we have to do is dissolve the VRA and gerrymander all congressional districts across 50 (or is it 57?) states, and we defeat his formula.

I presume since you mentioned 57 States that he's argued in favor of giving the territories a say in who governs them. I can understand why from your political viewpoint you would find that to be a negative, but that only gets us to 56 States unless he's also advocated something like splitting California in two.

This tool has to know that full VRA repeal = modern day Dred Scott = secession crisis/2nd Civil War within 4 years, right?

That is absurd, because Dred Scott was a Supreme Court case carried out by unelected judges, and the VRA is a legislative statute already subject to expiration. Repeal of VRA2 and VRA5 would be an action undertaken by elected actors.

Simply moving up the expiration date is no issue.

Of course, it might not be entirely necessary to repeal all of VRA2. It could suffice to simply just dump Thornburg v Gingles and enact national voter ID and registration laws.

Sam Wang's scheming is in any case easily beaten regardless of whether one counts 50 or 57 states. It would be very funny if Paul Ryan decides to install a new set of Congressional districts on Maryland!

[krazen1211]

I only saw his post (not the immediate quote, but the source quote) through your quotes as I don't bother with trolls like that suddenly return after a positive result, but I wonder how amenable he'll be to gerrymandering if Democrats do in 2018 what Republicans did in 2010. Electoral victory in this country is very fleeting. No one could have imagined 2006 in 2004 or 2010 in 2008. Democrats were at a generational peak in 2009 and it all came crashing down in 2010. It could easily be a mirror next time, with Democrats doing great in the House and at the state level, while suffering a degree of disappointment in the Senate. The governorships in this next midterm are all-important to redistricting after the 2020 Census.

Live and die by the sword.

[Torie]

Hey Krazen1211, long time, no see. One thing that puzzled me about your comments, was the suggestion that Paul Ryan could redistrict Maryland.  How would that work again? God bless Maryland, it is my favorite gerrymander. It's even better than PA!

[politicallefty]

Hey Krazen1211, long time, no see. One thing that puzzled me about your comments, was the suggestion that Paul Ryan could redistrict Maryland.  How would that work again? God bless Maryland, it is my favorite gerrymander. It's even better than PA!

With all due respect, I suggest you don't waste your time engaging him. Illinois and Maryland are crimes against humanity, while Pennsylvania and Ohio are divine gifts. (And I don't even have to look at his posts to know that.) We're the out party now, so I suggest those on the right don't get too comfortable.

[krazen1211]

Hey Krazen1211, long time, no see. One thing that puzzled me about your comments, was the suggestion that Paul Ryan could redistrict Maryland.  How would that work again? God bless Maryland, it is my favorite gerrymander. It's even better than PA!

As a matter of theory, some members of the loser party of the 2016 election have attempted to use the Election Regulations clause to compel states to enact certain 'commissions' to draw congressional districts. It is merely a hop, skip, and a jump to compel states to enact a certain set of congressional districts.

I do not think it is very necessary though and I am probably willing to let a certain political party maintain their Maryland Congressional districts. Better to focus on election security laws and reform. Although something as awful as preclearance should be removed for good.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why are you back?

[MarkD]

Even if the Supreme Court does not declare gerrymandering to be unconstitutional, we can prevent gerrymandering anyway by adopting a constitutional amendment that requires all redrawing of congressional districts and state legislative districts by independent redistricting commissions.
I have drafted a proposal for an amendment that, in general, rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to make its meaning narrower and clearer. I have just discussed this proposal under the thread about the topic of proposing constitutional amendments of your own.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, this isn't happening anytime soon. Trump isn't going to appoint an anti-gerrymandering nominee to the SCOTUS.

[Gass3268]

Well, this isn't happening anytime soon. Trump isn't going to appoint an anti-gerrymandering nominee to the SCOTUS.

Not entirely the case, there are some tea leaves that Kennedy could be receptive to some solution on gerrymandering.

[Dereich]

Well, this isn't happening anytime soon. Trump isn't going to appoint an anti-gerrymandering nominee to the SCOTUS.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this...is being pro-gerrymandering somehow part of the "conservative package" now? The real question with gerrymandering is one of justiciablity; does the Court have the authority to determine the practice's legality? There are major divides among "conservative judges" as to what the scope of the Court's power should be. The person who wrote the most recent pro-gerrymandering opinion and the biggest legislative supremacist on the Court was Scalia. There's every chance that a justice more inclined to support the Court's power to end gerrymandering gets appointed.

Plus, there's no reason to trust the Courts on the issue anyway. Congress has the undeniable power to end gerrymandering; that's where its opponents should look.

[politicallefty]

Even if the Supreme Court does not declare gerrymandering to be unconstitutional, we can prevent gerrymandering anyway by adopting a constitutional amendment that requires all redrawing of congressional districts and state legislative districts by independent redistricting commissions.
I have drafted a proposal for an amendment that, in general, rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to make its meaning narrower and clearer. I have just discussed this proposal under the thread about the topic of proposing constitutional amendments of your own.

I admire your idealism as someone that is also vehemently opposed to gerrymandering, but I see no path to pass any constitutional amendment limiting the practice. Congress would never pass it and there are certainly not 38 states ready to ratify.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this...is being pro-gerrymandering somehow part of the "conservative package" now? The real question with gerrymandering is one of justiciablity; does the Court have the authority to determine the practice's legality? There are major divides among "conservative judges" as to what the scope of the Court's power should be. The person who wrote the most recent pro-gerrymandering opinion and the biggest legislative supremacist on the Court was Scalia. There's every chance that a justice more inclined to support the Court's power to end gerrymandering gets appointed.

Plus, there's no reason to trust the Courts on the issue anyway. Congress has the undeniable power to end gerrymandering; that's where its opponents should look.

I don't know that he was necessarily opposed to the idea, just that he was resigned to the likely views of the next Supreme Court Justice. It's possible that Justice Kennedy rules against gerrymandering, but the legal arguments need to be second to none. I'm afraid the next Justice will be closer to Alito or Thomas rather than Scalia, which is actually very terrible from a civil liberties standpoint. Scalia, for all his warts, was an interesting mind and actually very good on some issues from a liberal point of view. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the new appointee will be another right-wing drone like Alito.

Do you really believe a Republican Congress would choose to limit gerrymandering? When was the last time any Republican legislature made it easier to vote or otherwise enacted measures that would be considered pro-democracy? (Well, actually, I think West Virginia passed automatic voter registration, albeit in conjunction with voter ID.)

[MarkD]

Even if the Supreme Court does not declare gerrymandering to be unconstitutional, we can prevent gerrymandering anyway by adopting a constitutional amendment that requires all redrawing of congressional districts and state legislative districts by independent redistricting commissions.
I have drafted a proposal for an amendment that, in general, rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to make its meaning narrower and clearer. I have just discussed this proposal under the thread about the topic of proposing constitutional amendments of your own.

I admire your idealism as someone that is also vehemently opposed to gerrymandering, but I see no path to pass any constitutional amendment limiting the practice. Congress would never pass it and there are certainly not 38 states ready to ratify.

There are two possible means of proposing an amendment: Congress or a convention of states. Maybe Congress would not be interested in an amendment that prevents gerrymandering if the proposed amendment dealt solely with that one issue. But as I said, the proposal I drafted deals with the broad goal of rewriting Section 1 of the 14th Amendment -- making the rules about what states may not do narrower, clearer, and more specific. My proposal is going to deal with a lot of controversial topics, and preventing gerrymandering is only one provision within a lengthy proposal. The broad goals of the amendment as well as certain specific things within it will be very appealing to conservatives, while other specific elements in it will be very appealing to liberals. I designed it to be a compromise. And even if Congress is not interested in that, a convention of states could be another way to get it proposed. I'm a supporter of Convention of States Project. (If I weren't a newbie here, I could include a link to their website.)

[I’m not Stu]

The Supreme Court can undo a few cases of gerrymandering, but the court cannot do enough. Independent commission referendums can do far more than the courts.