Independent State Legislature Theory; Moore v. Harper
Torie:
The WSJ hosts an opinion piece supporting the concept. The high court in NC bans gerrymandering and draws the CD map based on generalized words in the NC Constitution (court overreach imo, which is getting more popular at the state level). The "fix" is to blow the building up, and legalize CD gerrymandering once and for all, and put state courts out of business, at least when it comes to congressional district drawing. State legislative district line drawing would presumably not be affected. Just when poli sci academic experts were getting into their stride with "taking over" line drawing, storm clouds appear threatening to truncate the scope of their jurisdiction. How sad.
One "compromise" I suppose, probably reflecting judicial activism, would require explicit delegating of the legislative power on this issue to another body, rather than pulling it out of the ether, but even then, if not in the State Constitution, that could all be repleaded by the state legislature if the governor is in friendly hands, or one party has a supra majority. Can the voters by referendum force the legislature to delegate its power to another process by putting such a clause in the state constitution?
We shall find out in the next few months. SCOTUS's time in the klieg lights is not yet over.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/marc-elias-curious-idea-of-democracy-moore-v-harper-court-state-judges-election-law-gerrymandering-legislature-11659380162?mod=djemalertNEWS
ProgressiveModerate:
The flaw with the Independent State Legislature theory is sometimes courts HAVE to get involved, such as if there’s partisan gridlock (PA, MN, WI). Furthermore, certain states do have laws about how the maps can and can’t be drawn, such as OH and NY and when those are disobeyed it’s the courts job to step in.
I agree that sometimes the courts stretch their rulings like in MD or NC, however, I think that’s ultimately a much smaller problem than gerrymandering as a whole, especially since at the end of the day it leads to fairer maps. That could expose a larger problem with the courts rather than just on this specific issue
Nyvin:
If the "constitutional originalist" justices are going to be that extreme with their originalism with the word "legislature" than maybe we should expand that so called "originalism" to the entire concept of striking down laws as given to the Supreme Court through Marbury vs Madison.
No where in the constitution does it "specifically" say that the Supreme Court has that power and is not "constitutional originality" so any justice that makes the Independent State Legislature Theory argument is a fraud because they're being selective in their interpretations.
RussFeingoldWasRobbed:
Whatever. Unless it's the over the top version, SCOTUS doing this would benefit democrats
Torie:
Quote from: ProgressiveModerate on August 03, 2022, 11:34:18 AM
The flaw with the Independent State Legislature theory is sometimes courts HAVE to get involved, such as if there’s partisan gridlock (PA, MN, WI). Furthermore, certain states do have laws about how the maps can and can’t be drawn, such as OH and NY and when those are disobeyed it’s the courts job to step in.
I agree that sometimes the courts stretch their rulings like in MD or NC, however, I think that’s ultimately a much smaller problem than gerrymandering as a whole, especially since at the end of the day it leads to fairer maps. That could expose a larger problem with the courts rather than just on this specific issue
Yes, giving legislatures sole control would be a policy disaster, but good policy and the Constitutional textual meaning are not always in sync. In cases of gridlock of course, the federal courts step in to enforce the SCOTUS imposes equal population requirement. But there the metric is least change, so prior gerrymanders can have an extended half life potentially.
Btw the way, I came up with my own fairness metric chart. I should copyright it or something. :]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page