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.

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Roberts take the exact opposite direction on the VRA and suddenly declare the standard set by Congress on section 5 is no longer valid??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So the court can pass a judgment on Section 5 being outdated but it can't pass a judgment on standards for gerrymandering.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

[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.

[pbrower2a]

Gerrymandering is done to entrench the political reality of the opportune moment, and it is especially effective when the Party with the advantages is consummately ruthless and can turn an even split into a 70-30 edge. 

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[Nyvin]

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.

Yes, exactly.

Let's just wait for the North Carolina Republicans to pass a fair districting law.....oh wait, that'll literally never happen.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Yes, exactly.

Let's just wait for the North Carolina Republicans to pass a fair districting law.....oh wait, that'll literally never happen.

Or Texas Republicans, or Wisconsin Republicans, etc etc etc. You pair up and remember, many states do not have the ability to put referendum on the ballot to permit direct voter choice of a say our district in commission. Likewise some states don't have elected judiciaries and judicial nominees I'm this decision relies on to correct gerrymandering would be ratified, or blocked, by the same legislature who self-selected themselves with a gerrymandered map.

[PragmaticPopulist]

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.

Yes, exactly.

Let's just wait for the North Carolina Republicans to pass a fair districting law.....oh wait, that'll literally never happen.

Or Texas Republicans, or Wisconsin Republicans, etc etc etc. You pair up and remember, many states do not have the ability to put referendum on the ballot to permit direct voter choice of a say our district in commission. Likewise some states don't have elected judiciaries and judicial nominees I'm this decision relies on to correct gerrymandering would be ratified, or blocked, by the same legislature who self-selected themselves with a gerrymandered map.

Just wanted to put in my two cents in this discussion, being a Democrat from Maryland who agrees that the Democratic-drawn Maryland map is atrocious and should be thrown out.

The reason why gerrymandering has become such a problem in recent years is that technology has opened Pandora's Box on what is possible. Before 15 or so years ago, map-drawers had to largely guess how their lines would work.

A computer-generated map can create a state assembly map of Wisconsin where even if a Democrat wins statewide, they only carry 35% of the seats. While I agree that strict proportionality is nearly impossible to create with the current district system, I believe that that is taking it too far.

[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.

[MarkD]

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.

Yes, exactly.

Let's just wait for the North Carolina Republicans to pass a fair districting law.....oh wait, that'll literally never happen.

Or Texas Republicans, or Wisconsin Republicans, etc etc etc. You pair up and remember, many states do not have the ability to put referendum on the ballot to permit direct voter choice of a say our district in commission. Likewise some states don't have elected judiciaries and judicial nominees I'm this decision relies on to correct gerrymandering would be ratified, or blocked, by the same legislature who self-selected themselves with a gerrymandered map.

Just wanted to put in my two cents in this discussion, being a Democrat from Maryland who agrees that the Democratic-drawn Maryland map is atrocious and should be thrown out.

The reason why gerrymandering has become such a problem in recent years is that technology has opened Pandora's Box on what is possible. Before 15 or so years ago, map-drawers had to largely guess how their lines would work.

A computer-generated map can create a state assembly map of Wisconsin where even if a Democrat wins statewide, they only carry 35% of the seats. While I agree that strict proportionality is nearly impossible to create with the current district system, I believe that that is taking it too far.

If you read the Court's opinion, it was indeed grappling with a question "How far is too far?" The Court says it is a non-justiciable issue because there is no objectively right answer to that question. If there is no objectively right answer, then it is non-justiciable.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

2010 was a terrible year for Democrats, so this ruling definitely helps Republicans quite a bit for now. Democrats can hope that they don't suck at winning in 2020.

[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.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I wonder if Jim Cooper has accepted his 2022 fate in light of this ruling.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[pbrower2a]

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.

That is exactly what I see, with the courts involved only in the event of flagrant violations of something so basic as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the legislation that enforces the terms of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments).

I would expect Trump and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress to find ways in which to disenfranchise voters, such as restoring property qualifications to voting.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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!

[Kingpoleon]

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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

I know, but if Democratic favoring gerrymanders happen in more Republican friendly states, maybe they'll get a taste of their own medicine.