Plaintiffs present their case more strategically? You mean, not sloppy & unprepared?
Bkmk
RATS whining about Republicans using their methods, eh?
The word “Party” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. There is no legal basis to make it a test for illegally proportioned districts.
I would think that districting should represent the natural shared interests of people who happen to live near one another. If that won’t do, create a government based on representatives at large. In other words, a government other than the one we have now.
The court ruling that dictated equal populations among all of the House districts is an artificial and impossible standard. The first example is the single representative allocated to small states who have insufficient population to qualify for two or more representatives. Those states can never meet the equal population mandate. Secondly, The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions do not have a full member of the lower House. They get a pretend representative. and, of course, representatives are only required to have equal populations at that moment in time when redistricting occurs subsequent to the decennial census. The day after the census is taken, the populations begin to change and won’t be adjusted for 10 years. This is a ridiculous ruling and opens the barn door for all kinds of political manipulations.
Congressional District boundaries should be constrained by existing political boundaries as we currently do with State boundaries. Add the smaller political entities to the mix: counties, townships, boroughs, cities, wards, precincts, etc. Boundaries in existence on the Census canvass day must be used to craft the new districts and the districts must be defined by entire political divisions when possible. Expansion to include adjacent smaller political division would only occur when those areas were required to achieve equivalent sized districts. This would constrain the political mischief and ensure that we will tend to have districts that enjoy geography, economies, culture, and interests in common.
The duty of creating the specific boundaries within these constraints would be in the power of the legislature of the several states and keep the judges out of it. Completely prohibited would be any “nonpartisan” commission, board, or other unelected busy bodies.
Of course, this will never happen.
SCOTUS kicked the can down the road; a problem ignore usually gets Worse.
Didn’t Obama famously state that elections have consequences?