The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[SoCalCoug]

I agree with UT on this. This isn't just a Republican issue. It is a power issue, although Maryland is the only Democratic leaning state that has an issue currently.

I'm torn on the supreme courts decision. I hate gerrymandering, but I don't know if handing down a decree on it is the way to go. The states and ultimately the people need to address it.

How do they really address it when the voting districts are drawn specifically to keep the party in power, in power?

[beefytee]

How do they really address it when the voting districts are drawn specifically to keep the party in power, in power?

Well Utah is a very red state, but they were able to pass prop 4 which looks to address gerrymandering. I'm guessing there will be a state constitutional amendment soon if that doesn't work out.

Props and amendments aren't voted on based on gerrymandered districts. They are statewide. Sure you possibly can have a tyranny of the majority that blocks it, but I also think you can convince citizens of the benefits of a healthy republic over the short-term benefits of power.

[BlueK]

How do they really address it when the voting districts are drawn specifically to keep the party in power, in power?

Exactly. This is why we have courts. They can still say it's a state issue, but what was done here in these cases is way beyond the Constitution's intent of what representation means. So go back and come up with a better solution. They make rulings like this all the time when states or federal agencies go too far. There is nothing "activist" about that. What annoys me about Roberts a lot of times is his tendency to want to neuter the judicial branch almost entirely.

[creekster]

it wouldn't have had to be a one size fits all decree. Just tell them this is too extreme in these two cases and tell them to go back and find a better solution that isn't so blatantly partisan. They make rulings like that all the time from both sides of the bench. But like I said, I think the political momentum is on the side to end gerrymandering, so I'm not overly concerned.

It is not the court's role to provide parental slaps on the wrist for impolite partisanship. The court cannot second guess state decisions on voting districts.

[BlueK]

Well Utah is a very red state, but they were able to pass prop 4 which looks to address gerrymandering. I'm guessing there will be a state constitutional amendment soon if that doesn't work out.

Props and amendments aren't voted on based on gerrymandered districts. They are statewide. Sure you possibly can have a tyranny of the majority that blocks it, but I also think you can convince citizens of the benefits of a healthy republic over the short-term benefits of power.

True. It barely passed Utah by the skin of its teeth and it was written to not really be binding. But it was a good first step that indicates that the political momentum is on the anti-gerrymandering side.

[BlueK]

It is not the court's role to provide parental slaps on the wrist for impolite partisanship. The court cannot second guess state decisions on voting districts.

When the partisanship action is unconstitutional they can. I say it was, maybe five justices say it's not, but it's more than just "impolite" when states go out of their way to limit representation of certain people based on political ideas. If this were done on racial lines instead of party, this is already a settled matter and the gerrymandering would have been struck down.

[creekster]

When the partisanship action is unconstitutional they can.

It was not unconstitutional and the framers' intent was clear. Even Kennedy's supposed willingness to intervene involved his speculation about actions that would have been unconstitutional on other grounds, not on the basis of line drawing.

[frank ryan]

It is not the court's role to provide parental slaps on the wrist for impolite partisanship. The court cannot second guess state decisions on voting districts.

Calling it “impolite partisanship” is a candidate for euphemism if the year. What has gone on in places like Ohio, NC, Georgia, Wisconsin has been devious.

[frank ryan]

It was not unconstitutional and the framers' intent was clear. Even Kennedy's supposed willingness to intervene involved his speculation about actions that would have been unconstitutional on other grounds, not on the basis of line drawing.

Did the framers anticipate political parties?

[BlueK]

It was not unconstitutional and the framers' intent was clear. Even Kennedy's supposed willingness to intervene involved his speculation about actions that would have been unconstitutional on other grounds, not on the basis of line drawing.

what was the framers' intent? Making some citizens "more equal" than others based on which political party was in power? That would seem on its face to be antithetical to what they were trying to do.

[BlueK]

Calling it “impolite partisanship” is a candidate for euphemism if the year. What has gone on in places like Ohio, NC, Georgia, Wisconsin has been devious.

N. Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania until last year.

when swing states that vote Republican 51-49 in statewide elections end up with 75% of the representation in Congress, it's not an honest representation of the will of the people and is not what was the intent.

At least we can get a consensus mostly that partisan gerrymandering is "impolite" or in bad taste, or dishonest, I suppose. I don't think Creekster is all that keen on the extremism we're seeing on both sides of the aisle these days. This is a direct consequence of most districts being gerrymandered to where the winner never has to listen to an idea from the other side or to anyone's concerns other than those who voted for him.

[creekster]

Calling it “impolite partisanship” is a candidate for euphemism if the year. What has gone on in places like Ohio, NC, Georgia, Wisconsin has been devious.

That was referring to Blue K's notion of 'blatant' partisanship somehow justifying intervention by the supremes. What is blatant and how would they know when it was ok to step in? It is a form of state paternalism in which I have no interest when the issue belongs to the states themselves. (btw, did your omission of maryland mean you were not offended by their gerrymandering?)

[creekster]

Did the framers anticipate political parties?

Yes, and their risks. I assume you've read the Federalist papers. And, even so, they said it was up to the states to draw their districts.

I dislike gerrymandering, but it is a state issue. Unless the state's actions otherwise affect constitutional rights, the federal courts should stay out.

[creekster]

what was the framers' intent? Making some citizens "more equal" than others based on which political party was in power? That would seem on its face to be antithetical to what they were trying to do.

The framers intent was to let each state run its democracy as that state sees fit; to allow for state by state experiments in democracy, if you will. The framers did not intend for a paternal court to step in an instruct them on how to do it. Roberts wrote: “But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority.”

I agree with Roberts both that gerrymandering as in the examples before the court are wrong but that it is not the supreme court's job to step in and fix it.

[BlueK]

Yes, and their risks. I assume you've read the Federalist papers. And, even so, they said it was up to the states to draw their districts.

I dislike gerrymandering, but it is a state issue. Unless the state's actions otherwise affect constitutional rights, the federal courts should stay out.

I think it's a Constitutional right for a citizen to be represented the same as their neighbor even if their political preferences are different. How is that off base?