Posted on 08/27/2018 6:21:55 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A three-judge panel in North Carolina on Monday struck down the state’s Republican-drawn redistricting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander for the second time this year.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled
Republicans had redrawn the map to unconstitutionally favor their party. The panel reached the same conclusion in January, and the case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court.
But the justices in June sent the issue back down to the lower court to re-examine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue in light of their decision in another partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin.
The North Carolina court said the Wisconsin case did not call into question — and, if anything, supported — its previous determination that challengers had standing to assert partisan gerrymandering claims.
In writing the majority opinion, which Judge William Earl Britt joined, Judge James Wynn said partisan gerrymanders “raise the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace” because they “intentionally seek to entrench a favored party in power and make it difficult – if not impossible – for candidates of parties supporting disfavored viewpoints to prevail.”
“That is precisely what the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly sought to do here,” he said.
Wynn said legislative defendants drew a plan designed to subordinate the interests of non-Republican voters not because they believe doing so advances any democratic, constitutional, or public interest, but because, as the chief legislative map drawer openly acknowledged, the General Assembly’s Republican majority “thinks electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats.”
“But that is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative map drawers to make,” he said. “Rather, ‘those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern.’”
Common Cause, one of the groups challenging the maps, hailed the court’s decision Monday.
“Common Cause and our partners in this lawsuit took the fight to politicians who manipulate our democracy and we won,” Karen Hobert Flynn, the group’s president, said in a statement.
“We anticipate an appeal and are ready to turn legislators’ brazen partisan gerrymander into a historic ruling in the Supreme Court to end the practice nationwide.”
The court said it has not yet decided if it’s going to give the General Assembly another chance to draw a constitutionally compliant redistricting plan. The court has given Republican state officials until Aug. 31 to file briefs arguing why it should.
If the court agrees to give state officials another chance to draw new maps, Wynn said it will not consider any remedial plans enacted after 5 p.m. on Sept. 17.
But given the Nov. 6 midterm elections are fast-approaching, Wynn said the court finds it appropriate to take steps to ensure the timely availability of an alternative plan to use. He said a special master will be appointed “in short order” to help the court draw a remedial plan, which will be used if the court decides not to give North Carolina officials another chance to redraw the maps or if the maps they draw fail to remedy the constitutional violation.
The case could find its way back before the Supreme Court, which is now split 4-4 along ideological lines following Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement.
The court is on summer recess until the beginning of October, and the Senate’s GOP leadership has indicated that it plans to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to replace Kennedy, before the new session.
What about a partisan computer programmer?
Yeppers. By hook or by crook. Just not by fair elections.
That would make a good cover story to explain the results.
But those computer algorithms are designed by human beings with their own sets of biases and intentions. And technology firms who could deploy such programs are distinctly biased in favor of Socialist Governments.
Computer-generated results of any sort that can affect public policy must be subjected to rigorous, transparent examination and testing before they can be trusted as "unbiased".
Exactly.
That is precisely what happened in Arizona.
Here they used the fiction of a “non-partisan” commission.
Only the commission was packed with Democrat partisans.
Achtung! They have spoken.
Irb was right, they are black robed gangsters.
This would mean a Republican sweep.
This is the current map. Hard to see how it could be drawn any better than this
Appeal again.
Get it to the new Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on it.
Dem activist judges lose again.
“It is only allowed when the Democrats do it”
California is a case in point.
I lived in a strong Republican District. It was broken up into pieces 2 went into Democr5at leaning Districts that are blue, blue, blue! the other piece went to a strong red district that remains RED......Net effect we lost 1 red district and any chance that the other two would ever go red was lost.....The Dems have already done the “keep counting votes til ya win” trick twice now!!
bookmark
Associate Justice Frankfurter wrote scathing dissents.
Here's one:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr/Dissent_Frankfurter
Good find. I was just telling my mother that I suspected that the 14th Amendment was the relevant item.
God-***********ing damn it.
Haven’t they re-done it 6 times already?
What’s this BS I heard about delaying the election? The constitution sets the GD election date.
I read the Constitution and I can’t find “The black vote needs to be spread out enough to help the democrats” ANYWHERE in there. Is it in the section with the “right to choose” and the right to anal sex?
Current North Carolina Map Can be Used in 2018, Court Rules
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/north-carolina-map-gerrymander-2018
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.
