+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it (/showthread.php?tid=229866)
Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - rjmacs - 06-27-2019
In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts announced that the Constitution does not provide an adequate test of whether political gerrymandering violates the Constitution, and thus the federal judiciary has no role to play in deciding whether political gerrymanders are valid.
Congress, state legislatures, and state judiciaries are now the only place that non-racially-based gerrymander claims can be addressed.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - SteveG - 06-27-2019
Democracy? What democracy?
Supreme Court allows severe partisan gerrymandering to continue
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said Thursday that federal courts must stay out of disputes over when politicians go too far in drawing district lines for partisan gain -- a dramatic and sweeping ruling that could fundamentally affect the balance of power in state legislatures and Congress.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 decision for the conservative majority.
"Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles' ... does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," he wrote.
"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Roberts added. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."
Justice Elena Kagan read a scathing dissent from the bench for the four liberals.
"(G)errymandering is, as so many Justices have emphasized before, anti-democratic in the most profound sense," Kagan wrote.
"Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one," Kagan said. "The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."
Roberts said he believes this ruling does not mean there cannot be limits on partisan gerrymandering.
"Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering," he wrote. "Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts."
The court was asked to consider when politicians go too far in drawing lines for partisan gain in a set of cases arising from North Carolina and Maryland.
The North Carolina case was brought by Democrats challenging Republican-drawn maps, while the Maryland case was brought by Republicans challenging a Democratic map.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - Lemon Drop - 06-27-2019
SCOTUS today rules that partisan-gerrymandering challenges to electoral maps are political questions that are not reviewable in federal court, dismissing two challenges:
(1) By Democratic voters to North Carolina congressional map drawn by Republican officials (case page in Rucho v. Common Cause at this link);
(2) By Republican voters to one district drawn by Democrats in Maryland (case page in Lamone v. Benisek at this link).
SCOTUS also holds that state law assuming driver’s consent to blood test for drugs and alcohol, even when driver is unconscious, provides exception to Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement (case page in Mitchell v. Wisconsin at this link).
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_27_2019
This allows both parties to keep doing this. Unless challengers can show the redistricting was racially motivated, federal courts will stay out. It can still be challenged in state courts though.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - mattkime - 06-27-2019
>Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering
But, like, don't expect us to do anything.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - deckeda - 06-27-2019
They've run away from this issue for quite some time now. Each time they sent another case back or said it "wasn't ready" they signaled this day.
that the Constitution does not provide an adequate test
Right, because the Constitution doesn't have much to do with representation. Apparently.
And state judiciaries presumably base everything on random stuff not influenced by the Constitution, either.
But hey, it's good to know SCOTUS doesn't mind weighing in on election results.
I wonder if the next time Democrats gerrymander, conservatives will cry foul?
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - rjmacs - 06-27-2019
deckeda wrote:
I wonder if the next time Democrats gerrymander, conservatives will cry foul?
They cried foul in Maryland this time around, and the Court told them to go pound sand.
The more important outcome is that if anyone cries foul from now on, the federal courts will be deaf to them. That is a huge outcome, and it cannot be undone (except by another SCotUS decision) without amending the U.S. Constitution.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - deckeda - 06-27-2019
Yes, from now on is what I meant. Sorry if that wasn't obvious, since an event would have to occur after the ruling for what I said to to make sense
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - neophyte - 06-27-2019
>Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering
Of course not. THAT would violate the first amendment.
But don't expect us (SCotUS) to enforce it either, if the founding fathers failed to give us a litmus test for this EXACT problem, 'cuz we're too demagogic to adapt to the 21st century.
The majority in this opinion are truly second rate lazy lawyers with no insight into the roles they are supposed to fill as the head of the judicial system in the US.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - rjmacs - 06-27-2019
deckeda wrote:
Yes, from now on is what I meant. Sorry if that wasn't obvious, since an event would have to occur after the ruling for what I said to to make sense
Okay.
deckeda wrote:
I wonder if the next time Democrats gerrymander, conservatives will cry foul?
They might, but they had better do it in state court, because the federal courthouse is locked to them.
I don't see why gerrymandering opponents on either side of the political fence would be happy with this decision.
Re: Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it - Lemon Drop - 06-27-2019
We'll have to see what happens over the next 5 years or so - if states continue to proactively address this problem as Roberts has called on them to do. Several, both red and blue, already have by taking redistricting power away from their legislatures. Congress could also enact laws on this, according to Roberts.
The North Carolina case is very blatant and extreme; I doubt NC voters will tolerate that. Voters understand that if you let your own party do this, the other one will retaliate as soon as they're in power. Today's decision is a temporary victory for Republicans in the state, who hold a very narrow and dwindling majority but won't have to redraw districts before the 2020 Congressional elections.
This issue has a long history in NC and both parties have been guilty of blatant gerrymandering over the past 25 years. In fact when Democrats had the majority in the state house they drew districts along racial lines to ensure Democratic victories, and the Supreme Court struck those down. Today's decision maintains that racially-based gerrymandering can and will be reviewed by the Court.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article231403213.html
North Carolina clearly has to get its house in order on this issue, both parties.