SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question

[Badger]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Badger]

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

[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.

[Nyvin]

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.

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.   

[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.

[pbrower2a]

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, Maryland, and New York are so predominantly Democratic that Republicans can win few Congressional seats in those states. Maryland has only one natural district  in Appalachia. New York State has some rural areas. California? Republicans lost several  of the few seats that they had, which cannot be attributed to gerrymandering.

The problem with gerrymandering is that Parties end up nominating and electing extremists in marginal districts -- and eventually those extremists lose touch with the mainstream in their districts and get defeated.  

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

"Some standard"?  What standard? Or more specifically, what standard that a court can objectively decide is being met?  It's not the court's job to decide what standards should be, it's the court's job to decide whether standards established by the constitution or by the law are being met.

[Nyvin]

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.

Nearly every map that is drawn by a court is better than one drawn by a partisan legislature.   Considering there were circuit courts that felt comfortable striking down the maps I really don't think this is all as complicated as you make it out to be.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Do we feel that there is an implication that congress be in some way representative of its constituents? What can that possibly mean if the only people capable of changing those rules are the ones who owe their power to the rules as they are?

[MarkD]

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.

[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.

[cvparty]

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)

[MarkD]

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.

[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?

[MarkD]

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.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

[politicallefty]

It was disappointing, but completely expected based on the oral arguments and the current composition of this Court. One of the biggest problems I had with the decision was the notion that there is always a remedy through the political process. That is completely untrue. In North Carolina, there is no mechanism to undo gerrymandering other than through the gerrymandered legislature. The issue in that case is also one of entrenchment, which the Supreme Court failed to address.

I find the notion that they can't come up with some form of standard or red line that stops the most egregious partisan gerrymandering to be a cop-out and dereliction of duty. SCOTUS finds tests and limits to the most fundamental rights in the Constitution.

Right now, I think the political ramifications aren't as serious as some think, at least at the House level. Some states though seem left without a remedy. A lot of states will probably deadlock after the Census, incidentally leading to court-drawn maps. A few states have and some more may still perhaps adopt independent commissions. The problem, however, is that Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent arguing that independent redistricting commissions are unconstitutional. That would foreclose an avenue of reform that he himself said in this decision should be left to the political process.

As for Congress reining in gerrymandering, Democrats did indeed make that the first priority as part of HR1 (For the People Act). It passed the House 234-193 back in early March. It would require states to setup independent commissions or have them setup for them with standards set in law. I'm not sure the Arizona case potentially being overturned would affect this as Congress has very broad and sweeping powers over its own elections under the Elections Clause. SCOTUS has already said in past decisions that Congress has the power to draw the Congressional districts for any and all states. Theoretically, Congress could gerrymander the entire country in fell swoop.

[Virginiá]

It was disappointing, but completely expected based on the oral arguments and the current composition of this Court. One of the biggest problems I had with the decision was the notion that there is always a remedy through the political process. That is completely untrue. In North Carolina, there is no mechanism to undo gerrymandering other than through the gerrymandered legislature. The issue in that case is also one of entrenchment, which the Supreme Court failed to address.

Basically, Roberts is either an idiot or dishonest. For example, when talking about how voters vote:

https://twitter.com/leedrutman/status/1144343051567030273

Even a cursory glance at voting patterns of the past 10 years would show a massive and enduring collapse of split-ticket voting. This makes elections a lot more predictable, and gerrymanders more effective. But as usual, he just ignores that in favor of what he wanted to do all along.

[Del Tachi]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Del Tachi]

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.

[7,052,770]

We should have proportional representation instead of districts, and this won't be an issue.