Posted on 01/04/2019 12:25:54 PM PST by SMGFan
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering after punting on the issue during last term. The justices on Friday added to their docket two cases – one out of Maryland and another out of North Carolina – challenging when too much politics in the redistricting process becomes unlawful.
The justices, however, have long wrestled with how to measure when partisanship in the redistricting process has gone too far. The cases present a fresh opportunity for a state map to be struck down as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander for the first time.
In the Maryland case, State Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) is appealing a district court ruling that requires the state to redraw its 2011 congressional redistricting plan before the 2020 election after a district court found state officials intentionally flipped control of the 6th Congressional District from Republicans to Democrats.
In the North Carolina case, Republican lawmakers are appealing a second district court ruling striking down the state’s 2016 congressional maps. The decision stemmed from a challenge brought by Common Cause an
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Who do they think needs to be the “offical arbiter” of where the lines should be drawn?
If they decide they can say that gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it opens up a HUGE can of worms.
Is there another kind?
And shall we eliminate majority-minority districts? After all, they are the original gerrymandering.
I wish they’d leave Gerry alone. He was such a nice guy before they started mandering him.
I’ve thought about this a bit. Why don’t we just define it as a mathematical formula for distributing N districts with either a) roughly equal population in each district or b) roughly equal district area. Pretty easy solution and the procedure can be tweaked between census years but would be “fair”.
Gerrymandering by Dems will stand. By the GOP, unConstitutional!
The goal is to have “independent” (read: left-wing) boards deciding the lines in every state implementing Demonrat-majority districts. Look at CA where the “Indy” commission combined with electoral fraud has wiped out the 53 member delegation down to a paltry SEVEN seats (down from 26 in 1996). Arizona, which should have a 7R-2D majority is now 5D-4R thanks to an “Independent” left-wing board.
There was never a “problem” when countless states had Democrats gerrymandering. This is an attempt to steal countless Republican seats from majority GOP states.
Some of the districts in Florida are so silly, that APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE SPLIT...............
Pretty easy solution and the procedure can be tweaked between census years but would be “fair”.
What makes sense to me is to go by area. If a state has 30 reps, cut it into 30 equal, square boxes. Lay a grid down, that’s the districts.
The number of insulated reps would go WAY down.
Gerrymandering is evil.
Because the Court wants to mandate gerrymandering to benefit minorities, so rational, compact districts cannot be mandated.
1. I’m leery of saying you can’t gerrymander. Kinda feels like saying POTUS shouldn’t assume a voter mandate when he nominates judges.
2. Dems have been doing it for decades, but only now that R’s control many statehouses do we start questioning it. Uh, no. If we decide it’s bad, R’s have to get as many years to benefit as D’s got. Then the change can become effective. Dems don’t get to benefit for decades, then when R’s are about to get a turn, take that off the table. Turnabout’s fair play.
3. Awkward for feds to say “no gerrymandering” when they’ve done themselves in the past, such as creating majority-minority districts.
It’s not a case of gerrymandering being done, it’s about WHO gets to gerrymander.
If you cannot change the way the right wing masses vote, change the rules and also change the people who vote, thus invasion is happening.
Nothing will ever be fair for Democrats :-). It was OK for them to gerrymander in the past, but seeing that their ideas are repulsive to many states, they know they won’t be able to win state legislatures/governorships and control redistricting like they did in the past.
The only way you’ll truly eliminate gerrymandering is by increasing the number of members in the House by a factor of, at least, 4. One nice side effect of this is that it’s a lot harder to buy off 880ish people vs 220-ish for a majority in the House. Quite frankly, they should have never capped the House at 435 though I suspect they did knowing it’d be easier for two parties to control the House having as few members as possible.
If you don’t grow the House, all you’ll have are gerrymandered districts that look more organized. The problem doesn’t go away.
FWIW I’d like to see rules where districts must be rectangles , use natural boundaries such as rivers/main roads and borders or counties and no “connecting” segments between two or more distinct blocks ... any other shapes would be suspect and made to be redrawn.
Yeah but with the GOP having control of a majority of the statehouses over the last two prior census periods, the Rinos have come off pretty well in redistricting. I am sure the court will break 5/4 in a decision that will favor the Rats.
It should be by "citizen" population. Any formula would have designed by a mathematician who can stay true to math, not personal politics, so the algorithm must be peer reviewed. You also need a census that asks if one is a citizen.
I believe they already are roughly equal in population - the whole notion behind how many districts per state are assigned, which is based on the census / population count (excepting every state gets at least 1 house seat regardless of population).
The roughly equal area (measured in sq. miles, presumably) wouldn’t work well, as they could then pack some districts with residents, while making others really “skinny”.
If you can find a map of North Carolina congressional districts from the 1990’s & you’ll see what the issue is. One of our districts was drawn to span from Charlotte, north along Interstate 85, and into Greensboro and surrounds - specifically to ensure a majority-minority outcome (i.e - all but guaranteed an African-American representative). The whole of the state was a mess when Dems got to draw the lines, and it still a mess with GOP drawing the lines.
So the question is, why OK in the past, but not OK now? Don’t elections have consequences?
Arizona got its Gerry meandered pretty bad when the Kenyan boy sent his official meanderers there a few years ago. Arizona needs to take that crap the SCOTUS.
Well maybe Jim Clyburn’s district will get a looksie.
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.