General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMeet the man who may end gerrymandering: A retired Wisconsin law professors Supreme Court case coul
Meet the man who may end gerrymandering: A retired Wisconsin law professors Supreme Court case could save democracy
by David Daley at Salon
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/26/meet-the-man-who-may-end-gerrymandering-a-retired-wisconsin-law-professors-supreme-court-case-could-save-democracy/
"SNIP..............
The case with the most promise to deliver a lasting judicial remedy is Whitford v. Gill, from Wisconsin, which advances a fascinating standard called the efficiency gap. It is the brainchild of law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee, but has an elegant simplicity that is easily understandable outside of academia. If gerrymandering is the dark art of wasting the other partys votes either by packing them into as few districts as possible, or cracking them into sizable minorities in many seats the efficiency gap compares wasted votes that do not contribute to victory.
In November, a panel of federal judges smiled upon this standard and ruled that the state assembly districts drawn by a Republican legislature in the Whitford case represented an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Although Wisconsins natural political geography plays some role in the apportionment process, it simply does not explain adequately the sizable disparate advantage held by Republicans under these new maps, wrote the court.
The judges ordered new state assembly maps in time for the 2018 election a big deal, considering these district lines have helped give Republicans their largest legislative majorities in several decades, despite years in which Democratic candidates receive more votes. But just as important, it accepted the efficiency gap rationale and sent it toward Justice Kennedy. If Kennedy finds it workable, it would become much more difficult for politicians to choose their own voters and rig maps in their favor.
If this case makes history, it will be thanks to the commitment of lawyers and political scientists, but also to the Wisconsin citizens who launched it, starting with regular meetings at a Madison tea room. The plaintiff whose name could become synonymous with taming the gerrymander and restoring fairness and competitiveness to our elections is a retired law professor named Bill Whitford. We sat down at a redistricting conference at Duke University this month to discuss his case, the efficiency gap and all the luck it has required along the way
.................SNIP"
milestogo
(16,829 posts)msongs
(67,459 posts)Stargleamer
(1,992 posts)it will become too late for Gorsuch to wreck things.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Schwarzenegger complained about it in California.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Very spread out. White people generally do not despise Hispanic folks like black folks, and will allow them to live on the periferary of white towns and suburbs.
lindysalsagal
(20,746 posts)Whitford v Gill is a United States court case regarding unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
On July 8, 2015, the case was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin arguing that Wisconsins 2011 state assembly map was unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering favoring the Republican-controlled legislature which discriminated against Democratic voters.[1] The plaintiff argues that the map violates the Fourteenth Amendments guarantee of equal protection.[2]
In 2016, a three-judge federal panel allowed the case to proceed to trial, the first time a case regarding gerrymandering has proceeded in three decades. On November 21, 2016, a 2-1 decision declared that the map was unconstitutional. The panel deferred its ruling on the remedy which was handed down on January 27, 2017.[3]
To assess the validity of the map, the panel assessed: (1) [was] intended to place a severe impediment on the effectiveness of the votes of individual citizens on the basis of their political affiliation, (2) has that effect, and (3) cannot be justified on other, legitimate legislative grounds.[4]
lindysalsagal
(20,746 posts)change their state? And they'll have to either win at the local court or have it make it to the scotus?
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)maybe it will straighten up other states.