SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[libertpaulian]

Per SCOTUSBlog, just now.  Here's the link to the opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

Looks like it's up to the states to resolve gerrymandering in federal and state legislatures.

[Gass3268]

Democrats better have a challenge in North Carolina ready to go like today in state court.

[GP270watch]

What a spineless nonsensical decision.

[libertpaulian]

Democrats better have a challenge in North Carolina ready to go like today in state court.

I believe the NC Supreme Court is going to hear (or already has heard) such a case.

[Gass3268]

Democrats better have a challenge in North Carolina ready to go like today in state court.

I believe the NC Supreme Court is going to hear (or already has heard) such a case.

Pretty sure they were waiting for the Feds to make up their minds.

[Gass3268]

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

[libertpaulian]

Thankfully, PA's map is safe because its ruling came from a state court.

[Slander and/or Libel]

What a spineless nonsensical decision.

Seriously. This is absurd.

[ajc0918]

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

[Del Tachi]

Freedom decision

[Starpaul20]

Honestly, this is what I was expecting.

[Gass3268]

Thank God for the Census decision.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, this is what I was expecting.

Pretty much. It's hugely disappointing to me but the writing was on the wall long ago, once Kennedy left.

Doesn't mean the door is shut for good though, but at least until conservatives lose their majority.

[Nyvin]

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

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

[MarkD]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While I obviously disagree with the decision on principle, this is actually on balance good for Democrats. The North Carolina map will likely be struck down by the state Supreme Court now, while the Maryland map is safe.

[Virginiá]

While I obviously disagree with the decision on principle, this is actually on balance good for Democrats. The North Carolina map will likely be struck down by the state Supreme Court now, while the Maryland map is safe.

Maybe in the short-term. The long-term would have been much better for Democrats if partisan gerrymandering everywhere was reigned in. Although tbh it's debatable how much, because even a favorable decision here probably would have only curtailed the more extreme maps.

edit: Actually, maybe not. Not sure how Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina's cases would have gone, but if all 3 had to be redrawn, that would have better for Democrats (even if MI doesn't change much).

[GP270watch]

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.

[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.

[Beet]

All the court needed to do was make the legislature draw maps by some standard other than distorting the vote.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Looks like good news for Dems in the South, but horrible for those wanting to un-gerrymander the Midwest. 

[Tintrlvr]

What a spineless nonsensical decision.

It's ironic that such a decision saying the opposite decision would be political is itself nakedly political.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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?

[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?

[Nyvin]

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

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

Yes.