Posted on 06/17/2018 4:44:26 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
The Supreme Court has a big decision left to make as it heads into its final weeks of the term: whether to strike down a voter map for the first time as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Experts agree it would be a game changer if the court is able to find a workable test to assess when legislators have gone too far in drawing congressional maps that give their party an edge.
The court has longed shied away from policing congressional maps without a clear way to measure how much political bias in redistricting is too much.
Court watchers say Justice Anthony Kennedy, a likely swing vote, has been looking for a standard since 2004 when the court refused to wade into a dispute over Pennsylvania’s map.
Kennedy signaled at the time that while the court did not have a clear solution then, one could be found eventually.
“That no such standard has emerged in this case should not be taken to prove that none will emerge in the future,” he said.
ETC...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Now Democrats are complaining about the gerrymandered 'ghettos' Democrats created.
Gerrymandering is corruption. It is vote farming. Both parties do it. Did I mention it is corruption? It is corrupt. Wicked and evil too.
I WISH they would look at Arizona. The Dems illegally gerrymandered this state in 2010 and Gov Brewer sued. A Clinton judge threw out the lawsuit and the Left was able to Gerrymander Kirsten Sinema into a seat that she is using as a springboard to her Senate run. CHEATING! And CRIMINAL DEM JUDGES!
Somebody has to select boundaries. They have to use some guidelines or objectives.
Someone else is going to complain.
That’s exactly the same story for Tammy Duckworth. Democrats gerrymandered the IL 8th, so she got elected to the House, then later she went on to the Senate.
The dems would lose probably half their seats across the country if the courts drops gerrymandering.
I think elections should be across counties only as the smallest voting block, AND they should be vertically and horizontally congruent.
A decision on one outstanding ruling is possible tomorrow at 10 am.
Hers was the worst, her district looked like a Rorschach ink blot.
I've never seen it actually DO something. 99% of the time you create, say, a new white district while at the same time, created a new black one.
It's mostly deck chair reshuffling.
My, ‘Little Inner Libertarian’ wants me to leave this here:
“The smallest minority on Earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” ~ Ayn Rand
Man, Oh, Man! Has our Government subverted OUR RIGHTS at EVERY opportunity, for THEIR gain.
*SPIT*
P.S. ‘Minorities’ has NOTHING to do with race, religion, creed or color. It’s ALL of us AMERICANS, individually who make up the whole.
Sessions is not a fan of personal liberty. Nor is most of the DoJ. That’s a problem.
This is going to be a hard decision.
In past, federal judges have thrown out race neutral maps, because it diluted the minority vote; but they have also thrown out maps that guaranteed minority representation in some districts, because it was argued that had they been race neutral, minorities *might* have picked up seats in other districts.
Yep, the SCOTUS is going to earn its beer with this one.
At the other end of the spectrum - I give you Guam.
There are 15 members of the territorial legislature (Called Senators) they are all elected at large. No district’s whatsoever. This also breeds corruption as what you get is a revolving door where you get members of the same families or clans elected.
I would like to see congressional districts limited to 250,000 people. That would add seats in congress but it would also negate the supposed reason for Gerrymandering as “Minority-Majority” districts would be easier to obtain with squinting at the map.
Predicted criteria from the Court: any ‘gerrymandering’ that benefits conservatives (or by association, Trump) is automatically unconstitutional.
He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, so his invention should be constitutional. On the other hand, he did not sign the Constitution when it was completed. So maybe his support doesn't make it constitutional.
One simple thing would be to not allow the crossing of a jurisdictional line, like that of a city or county.
I remember two such stunts in my prior tenure in the DPRM:
1) College Park was cut in half by the dems, placing each in an adjoining district. This eliminated any student vote from being effective.
2) Again, later,the dems, apparently wanting more party purity, changed Connie Morella’s (R) district from solely Montgomery county areas to include Prince George’s county. That took her out the next election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.