Get ready for more gerrymandering! SCotUS doesn't want to hear it

[mattkime]

>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.

Here in Wisconsin the state supreme court ruled that a post election power strip of the governor was legal.

Good luck with expecting civility out of the states.

[deckeda]

Congress could also enact laws on this, according to Roberts.

And monkeys could fly out of his butt, also. I do so adore the "not my job" stance when literally, the job was placed upon their doorstep.

These clowns wouldn't recognize a bigger picture if it was shoved in their face on a 70" television.

[rjmacs]

mattkime wrote:
Good luck with expecting civility out of the states.

Ya get who ya vote for!

[$tevie]

Frankly, I don’t think the Supreme Court can find partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional because I don’t think partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

I’m totally against gerrymandering for any reason, but being alarmed or upset is not a legal position.

[Lemon Drop]

deckeda wrote:
Congress could also enact laws on this, according to Roberts.

And monkeys could fly out of his butt, also. I do so adore the "not my job" stance when literally, the job was placed upon their doorstep.

These clowns wouldn't recognize a bigger picture if it was shoved in their face on a 70" television.

I recommend this for more information:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/w...rict-lines

What individual states are doing to reform the redistricting process:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/c...ng-in-2019

This issue is far more complicated than how it's being discussed in this thread. I think it's good to resist oversimplification.

When you see how many different methods states currently use to redistrict, and how much voter activism there is on this issue, you can understand why the Supreme Court might choose not to weigh in on this and let state voters continue to work it out themselves.
Not saying I agree or disagree with today's decision, just saying I see the political landscape and it's very complicated. There was no wand the Supreme Court could wave and "fix" this for 50 states.
They could have told NC and MD they have to do their maps over, but by what method? Do them over how exactly? And what about all the other states? If state's voters want a more fair method for redistricting, they have remedies available and they need to enact those.

[mattkime]

>There was no wand the Supreme Court could wave and "fix" this for 50 states.

No, but there's a clear path to incremental improvement. Bright lines at extremes should not be difficult.

[rjmacs]

$tevie wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think the Supreme Court can find partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional because I don’t think partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

I’m totally against gerrymandering for any reason, but being alarmed or upset is not a legal position.

It is an entirely tenable position (in fact, it's John Roberts' position) that even if partisan gerrymandering does violate principles established by the Constitution, there isn't a mechanism provided by the Constitution to remedy that problem.

So, gerrymandering may well violate the Constitution (or at the very least, the democratic principles it enacts), but that just identifies the problem. To get to a solution, Roberts says, you have to go local...

Edit: for the record, Elena Kagan really, really disagrees, and I think she makes some great points. But she was dissenting today, so it doesn't much matter in the short run.

[Lemon Drop]

mattkime wrote:
>There was no wand the Supreme Court could wave and "fix" this for 50 states.

No, but there's a clear path to incremental improvement. Bright lines at extremes should not be difficult.

Was the Maryland case before the court "extreme?" I don't think it was. The more I read about this, the more I think the court was right not to open this can of worms and have the SCOTUS try to fix these state-level problems. I understand how awful the NC situation is. It's just wrong and that state needs to fix it. If the Court had taken these two, they'd likely eventually have to take all 50 states in some form or fashion. How could they say no to the others? That would mean that SCOTUS would be doing something that the Constitution very clearly says is the responsibility of each state AND of Congress. Currently the process is very messed up across the country. Congress needs to act. Both parties are guilty of unfair practices that hurt voters and damage democracy.

There are currently more than 20 bills before Congress on this issue:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/c...h-congress

[pdq]

I'm not sure I buy these "not my job" rulings. I was watching "making a Murderer" part 2 last night, and one federal judge wasn't too concerned that 16 year old Brendan Dassey's confession (which was the sole piece of evidence against this mentally slow kid, and obtained without a lawyer present) was fed to him or coerced.

His opinion was (fortunately) a minority one in a three judge appeals panel. Specifically, the dissenter said in his opinion he didn't think it was his job to search out what current research said about a confession obtained under these circumstances (like his fellow judge did, who wrote the majority opinion throwing the confession out).

To me, if things are unjust and a plaintiff can't get relief elsewhere, then it's your job, federal judiciary. That's how "separate but equal" was finally tossed out, and "one man (or woman) - one vote" became famous in an effort to end racial vote suppression.

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing say it's not their job.

[Ombligo]

Someday, when the history of this country is written, today's decision will be shown as pivotal to the dissolution of democracy.