-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering
- Thread starter Vanillalite
- Start date
Dreadnought
Member
It's happening
Big Baybee
Member
Fuck.
The twist.I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
Maps are people.
skullmuffins
Banned
by a 5-4 vote thanks to Garland's stolen SCOTUS seat.I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
Political affiliation is not strict scrutiny. I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Phrozenflame500
Member
...Is it unconstitutional?
I mean gerrymandering is bullshit, but I'm not aware if it directly violates any part of the constitution.
I mean gerrymandering is bullshit, but I'm not aware if it directly violates any part of the constitution.
I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
Hmmm
and could come at the expense of Republicans
Yep that'll be rejected then, unless Kennedy or Roberts want to protect that legacy. I suppose partisan reasons aside they could argue in any number of ways it's not unconstitutional.
I'm just not expecting much at all.
From the Wall Street Journal's SCOTUS reporter Jess Bravin:
Another year with Kennedy on the court would be quite welcome.
https://twitter.com/jessbravin/status/876797062033092608
Buried Lede: No chance AMK retires with the partisan gerrymander case on the docket.
Another year with Kennedy on the court would be quite welcome.
https://twitter.com/jessbravin/status/876797062033092608
BoogieWoogie
Banned
If Garland were in there, this would be a done deal. Sigh.
It's happening
It's happening during a republican heavy court panel that will see nothing wrong with this and all will stay status quo. It won't come up for another 25+ years because they will have already "ruled it constitutional".
Don't get excited
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
It's apparently pretty hard to argue (in the constitutional law world) that partisan gerrymandering (as opposed to racial) is actually unconstitutional. It absolutely should be because it's fucking terrible, but I don't think the language is there.
I could absolutely be wrong, though. I'm just under the impression this is the situation from how previous cases have been handled.
acheron_xl
Member
Twist: Thomas flips.
I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
Yupppp....
Skellig Gra
Member
It's apparently pretty hard to argue (in the constitutional law world) that partisan gerrymandering (as opposed to racial) is actually unconstitutional. It absolutely should be because it's fucking terrible, but I don't think the language is there.
I could absolutely be wrong, though. I'm just under the impression this is the situation from how previous cases have been handled.
I could see an argument that is violates the 15th amendment by reducing the value of a particular persons vote. Obviously not a Supreme Court Justice but it makes sense to me.
Twist: Thomas flips.
Then it'll be a 5-5 split because that'll be the day Scalia rises from his grave.
LegendofJoe
Member
It's happening during a republican heavy court panel that will see nothing wrong with this and all will stay status quo. It won't come up for another 25+ years because they will have already "ruled it constitutional".
Don't get excited
If they rule that way it will put a stake in the heart of this country. If gerrymandering continues unabated there will be point for many states to remain in the union.
AuthenticM
Member
This is the one, guys. This decision will determine the fate of democracy in the USA.
The last time the Court took up this issue, Kennedy said he could foresee an argument against partisan gerrymandering if an actual test could be created that demonstrated clearly when gerrymandering teetered beyond the norms of a party trying to protect its members and into an undue burden on voting rights.
That's exactly what the Wisconsin case has. Is there a reason you all are so pessimistic besides rote cynicism?
That's exactly what the Wisconsin case has. Is there a reason you all are so pessimistic besides rote cynicism?
ryutaro's mama
Member
This is the one, guys. This decision will determine the fate of democracy in the USA.
This decision?!?
The one in November already did that. Because of THAT one, we got a fairly red Justice instead of a moderate at best.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The last time the Court took up this issue, Kennedy said he could foresee an argument against partisan gerrymandering if an actual test could be created that demonstrated clearly when gerrymandering teetered beyond the norms of a party trying to protect its members and into an undue burden on voting rights.
That's exactly what the Wisconsin case has. Is there a reason you all are so pessimistic besides rote cynicism?
I think the pessimistic people don't realize the WI case was specifically tailored for Kennedy
It's not really well known, that it was the plan.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Those presenting the case will have to show a ton of evidence that the intent behind gerrymandering was to target distinct racial/ethnic groups for underrepresentation.
That was what got the NC voter ID law originally struck down last year:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-law-226438
Notably, the judges distinguish between strictly partisan laws (which are deemed fair) and discriminatory laws (which are unconstitutional).
That was what got the NC voter ID law originally struck down last year:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-law-226438
Notably, the judges distinguish between strictly partisan laws (which are deemed fair) and discriminatory laws (which are unconstitutional).
Edit: ^This. Also, I consider SCOTUS striking down most of the Voting Rights Act to be one of their biggest fuck ups in recent years right behind Citizens United.
We'd better hope not.
This is the one, guys. This decision will determine the fate of democracy in the USA.
We'd better hope not.
I could see an argument that is violates the 15th amendment by reducing the value of a particular persons vote. Obviously not a Supreme Court Justice but it makes sense to me.
Seems very unlikely. You could have made the same argument about drawing district lines based on the population of eligible voters, and the court rejected that unanimously just last year:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...61d062438bb_story.html?utm_term=.329ccccfc846
Those presenting the case will have to show a ton of evidence that the intent behind gerrymandering was to target distinct racial/ethnic groups for underrepresentation.
Well, no. The significance of this case is about whether gerrymandering is still illegal in the absence of that.
timetokill
Banned
Notably, the judges distinguish between strictly partisan laws (which are deemed fair) and discriminatory laws (which are unconstitutional).
I wonder if part of the strategy will be that there is no way to effectively separate the two in this instance.
I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
Yeah. I dont expect SC to come to the just outcome on this one, unfortunately.
IMO the court finds 5-4 that there was partisan gerrymandering in this case, with Kennedy as the swing vote, then Kennedy retires. So...good and bad.From the Wall Street Journal's SCOTUS reporter Jess Bravin:
Another year with Kennedy on the court would be quite welcome.
https://twitter.com/jessbravin/status/876797062033092608
The last time the Court took up this issue, Kennedy said he could foresee an argument against partisan gerrymandering if an actual test could be created that demonstrated clearly when gerrymandering teetered beyond the norms of a party trying to protect its members and into an undue burden on voting rights.
That's exactly what the Wisconsin case has. Is there a reason you all are so pessimistic besides rote cynicism?
Having read all of the arguments in favor of the Citizen's United decision I have no reason to use logic, fairness or rational thought as a basis to be optimistic. There are five judges on that bench perfectly capable of contorting langauage and thought to map to a ridiculous decision, and they answer to no one. So they don't give a shit what people think.
Orbis Tabula
Member
This case going the right way would just be everything. Fingers crossed. Don't let me down, SCOTUS.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
I wish we could fast-forward ahead to this case.
If the ruling was upheld, what would happen next? I assume Wisconsin almost immediately would have to redraw.
Afterward, would other states be able to bring suits to argue a redrawing is warranted?
If the ruling was upheld, what would happen next? I assume Wisconsin almost immediately would have to redraw.
Afterward, would other states be able to bring suits to argue a redrawing is warranted?
SolarPowered
Member
Yeah, I'm going to keep my expectations nice and low.I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
I wish we could fast-forward ahead to this case.
If the ruling was upheld, what would happen next? I assume Wisconsin almost immediately would have to redraw.
Afterward, would other states be able to bring suits to argue a redrawing is warranted?
If the ruling is upheld, new maps would have be drawn before the fall 2018 election as originally slated.
AP:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker remains confident that GOP-drawn legislative district maps will survive a Supreme Court review.
The nation's highest court on Monday said it will hear arguments in the case. Justices also put on hold an earlier ruling requiring that new maps be drawn by November.
Walker spokesman Tom Evenson says the Republican governor "is confident Wisconsin's redistricting process is constitutional and is pleased to see the Supreme Court take the case."
Democratic state legislative leaders say they have faith that the Supreme Court will uphold lower court rulings that found the maps unconstitutionally favored Republicans.
Democratic state Assembly leader Peter Barca says "Voters should be able to choose their representatives, not the other way around."
The Supreme Court is putting the redrawing of Wisconsin legislative districts on hold while the justices consider the issue of partisan gerrymandering.
The justices issued their order Monday about 90 minutes after they agreed to hear the Wisconsin case in the fall, the first case on partisan politics and redistricting in more than a decade.
The court's five conservative justices voted to stop the redistricting process. The four liberals would have let it proceed.
A three-judge court struck down the districts as an illegal partisan gerrymander and ordered new ones to be put in place for the 2018 elections.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to decide the Wisconsin case before early next year.
NPR:
Last November, a panel of federal judges ruled against the state's electoral district map, which was drawn by Republican lawmakers after the 2010 census. As Johnson said, then-President Barack Obama did well in the state when he was re-elected in 2012, and "yet Democrats gained no seats in the Legislature, remained deeply in the minority."
The lower court's ruling "ordered new maps drawn in time for the 2018 elections," the wire service adds. And "that work is proceeding."
Shadowhelper
Banned
...Is it unconstitutional?
I mean gerrymandering is bullshit, but I'm not aware if it directly violates any part of the constitution.
It is actually unconstitutional. Despite many people thinking its a privilege, it is actually a right, according to the fiftenth ammendant, which says its a right that cannot be '"denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Note, it cannot be abridged. No limits. In fact, the phrase servitude was anticipating a senario where people sentenced to hard labor would not be allowed to vote anymore, so that is how much the constituion intended for everyone to be allowed to vote, even fellons should be allowed to vote. These artificial restrictions by the republicans that seem to hit minorities almost exclusively, violates this. Voting is mentioned a bunch of times in the constitution, but not in the bill of rights. Can't be bothered to look up the other instances but its there.
If this happens, it would be disasterous for the Republicans who depend on this to completely dominate the lower house chambers. Dems would really get a huge boost from this.
plagiarize
Banned
I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.
Even though it would underline it, that would maintain the status quo. And if the wave happens next year (and it happens at the state level too) then hopefully the dems will get to punish the shit out of the GOP for this.
Version 3.0
Member
Even though it would underline it, that would maintain the status quo. And if the wave happens next year (and it happens at the state level too) then hopefully the dems will get to punish the shit out of the GOP for this.
Yeah, that's my backup hope. It'd obviously be better if they rule that it's not allowed. And in my opinion, it shouldn't be, as it deliberately causes a portion of the populace to have less representation in government. The math is not difficult. Only the interpretation of the actual words of the constitution to show that this violates the intent is missing.
But, should this be upheld as legal, it would be poetic justice if the were a big enough Democratic wave in 2020 to screw the GOP with their own playbook.
It is actually unconstitutional. Despite many people thinking its a privilege, it is actually a right, according to the fiftenth ammendant, which says its a right that cannot be '"denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Note, it cannot be abridged. No limits.
In this particular phrasing, it says cannot be denied or abridged due to these specific things. It doesn't say "or for any other reason", therefore you can interpret it to mean other reasons are acceptable. That's bullshit, but that's the GOP argument: we're abridging it for a reason not listed. That being party affiliation.
There is absolutely zero doubt that the writers and signers of the constitution would not accept such an argument. But this court might.
Big Baybee
Member
Even though it would underline it, that would maintain the status quo. And if the wave happens next year (and it happens at the state level too) then hopefully the dems will get to punish the shit out of the GOP for this.
Our only hope is going to be to gerrymander the shit out of this country. Vote in '18 and '20 guys.
killer rin
Member
Calling it now. It'll be ruled Constitutional by a Republican Supreme Court and thus this will be one more thing for Democrats to blame themselves for because they would have had a chance to actually make meaningful once-in-a-lifetime change if only they could have gotten Hillary elected.
Fenderputty
Banned
The inclusion of Gorsuch doesnt really change much. It was 5-4 and now it's a 4-4 with Gorsuch being the wild card.
This wasn't built for Gorsuch though. It was built to flip Kennedy by providing a metric in which to weigh how partisan the maps are drawn up
This wasn't built for Gorsuch though. It was built to flip Kennedy by providing a metric in which to weigh how partisan the maps are drawn up
This case going the right way would just be everything. Fingers crossed. Don't let me down, SCOTUS.
The case was built around Kennedy. It's just a matter of if he finds the argument he asked for compelling.
Twist: Thomas flips.
Didn't Thomas cast a surprising vote on NC's gerrymandered maps? I never thought I'd see him do something like that, and if he can do it once...
whyamihere
Banned
The inclusion of Gorsuch doesnt really change much. It was 5-4 and now it's a 4-4 with Gorsuch being the wild card.
This wasn't built for Gorsuch though. It was built to flip Kennedy by providing a metric in which to weigh how partisan the maps are drawn up
.
I'm actually not quite sure how Gorsuch would rule on this.
SecretMoblin
Member
Didn't Thomas cast a surprising vote on NC's gerrymandered maps? I never thought I'd see him do something like that, and if he can do it once...
Wasn't super surprising given his past opinions on racial gerrymandering and other issues, like when he opined that cross burning should be exempted from free speech protections. He's not quite the dopey Scalia bootlicker he's often accused of being.
Autodidact
Banned
Pinning your hopes on Clarence fucking Thomas might be worse than pinning your hopes on the Media's Moderate Darlings in the Senate. Either Kennedy will flip or gerrymandering will stay.
SolarPowered
Member
I've been pissed at democrats for a lot of things since the wall street bailout, but not for the electoral college. It absolutely and comprehensively fucked us worse than ever this go around. I can see myself ranting constantly about the EC when dementia or Alzheimers hits me in 40-60 years. Easily one of the worst things about our messed up electoral process.Calling it now. It'll be ruled Constitutional by a Republican Supreme Court and thus this will be one more thing for Democrats to blame themselves for because they would have had a chance to actually make meaningful once-in-a-lifetime change if only they could have gotten Hillary elected.
Seth Enosh
Member
There is absolutely zero doubt that the writers and signers of the constitution would not accept such an argument. But this court might.
Gerrymandering is literally named after one of the writers of the constitution, Elbridge Gerry (he wasn't a signer because he was protesting the lack of a bill of rights in the original text.)
Gerrymandering was not invented by the republicans and all political parties in the USA have done for literally centuries.
Legal arguments against partisan gerrymandering are far from a slam dunk in any sense, although the supreme court's case law around redistricting and "one person one vote" makes it less of a stretch than history and the text of the constitution and amendments might seem to indicate.
Legal arguments against partisan gerrymandering are far from a slam dunk in any sense, although the supreme court's case law around redistricting and "one person one vote" makes it less of a stretch than history and the text of the constitution and amendments might seem to indicate.
Since the court was already rigged by the GOP explicitly to protect their gerrymandering and voter suppression, we'll never really know.