Printable View
In anticipation of the upcoming Wisconsin gerrymandering case I hereby dedicate this thread to a discussion of the future (and the present) of gerrymandering in the US.
It will be interesting to see whether the Court accepts the partisan symmetry measure as relevant and compelling:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/2...y-vs-math.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Nope. The reason the courts will hear racial challenge questions is because they're following Congressional legislation which allows them to do so (and then when hearing them they apply the strict scrutiny standard because prior jurisprudence tells them there isn't a prima facie reason for there to be differences based on race). Partisan stacking/cracking (I can't really call it gerrymandering because that actually has a specific meaning to the court which does not apply here) is an issue which is first going to have to be addressed by Congress or by states individually because that's where the Constitution placed regulation of state districting. It doesn't matter if the capability exists to referee district-drawing now, that's just not a job for the courts unless and until it gets delegated to them by those whose job it is now.
LF, even if you ignore the question of Congressional legislation, isn't it also a questionable argument in the first place? Even with automated redistricting, you'd be hard-pressed to find a system that would eliminate structural factors that make D voter distribution inefficient. And if you managed to make some system that would actually meet the rather arbitrary standard of partisan symmetry, you'd almost certainly get laughable district boundaries of the sort that are currently used to indict gerrymandering.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
IMO it seems better to push for some sort of automated process rather than litigating this issue in the courts, since on so many levels it seems hard to defend.
Perhaps, but that's not the sort of thing SCOTUS likes to get into if district and appellate courts have let it go. Ye olde questions of fact are supposed to be what the lowest levels have already resolved. They'll address such matters if the have to but they'd prefer not to hold up bad examples for display because negative examples aren't a very good way to show lower courts what SCOTUS would actually like to see done/helping the lower courts find a template that IS workable and constitutional.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I just think the First Amendment angle is very interesting.
As a theoretical framework I guess it is. But it leads to lots of unexplored territory as well, and would be a complete non-starter with the current Supreme Court even if it didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In anticipation of all the exciting upcoming SCOTUS news on this topic, here's a small update on NC's shenanigans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cour...al-gerrymander
One nation under gobbledygook: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/u...?smid=tw-share
PA to go back to the drawing board:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pa...-20180122.html
State court imposed a map on PA.
And I figured you might be interested in this, Aimless.
Five Thirty Eight
Big update from Wisconsin:
https://www.democracydocket.com/case...ing-challenge/
That separation of powers bit is a nice new twist. I doubt the state Supreme is gonna go along with it for obvious reasons. :D And at a guess, it wouldn't be an area where it could be overruled by SCOTUS since it would fall under the provisions of the Wisconsin state constitution. Which is good because I really don't think we want to give this SCOTUS a chance to say that court review of districting challenges is a violation of the separation of powers clause and doctrine overall.
Allowing myself a little hope in the spirit of the season :downcast: