General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMaybe just maybe, a glimmer of hope and possibly GOOD news? This of course, is huge!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/anthony-kennedys-questioning-suggests-extreme-partisan-gerrymandering-could-be-in-danger/Anthony Kennedys Questioning Suggests Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering Could Be in Danger
snip:
Creatively drawn political maps designed to give one party an entrenched advantage could be in danger, if questioning by the Supreme Courts swing justice on Tuesday is any indication.
The court heard a landmark challenge to partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, a case whose outcome could strike down extreme gerrymandering or inspire more states to adopt it. Based on his questioning, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the courts key swing vote, gave the impression that he was looking for a way to invalidate Wisconsins maps and possibly set an important precedent against this type of gerrymandering.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)That may be a beginning to better governing and better politicians.
Greybnk48
(10,171 posts)just like they (repukes) got rid of Feingold.
PearliePoo2
(7,768 posts)"Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly hostile to voting rights. Described arguments against gerrymandering as "social science gobbledygook.
Here's Berman's Twitter page:
https://twitter.com/AriBerman?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)unblock
(52,303 posts)it would certainly be worth celebrating a 5-4 decision to restrict partisan gerrymandering.
however, there's no way partisan gerrymandering will be eliminated. at best they'll come up with some test -- maybe well-defined, maybe not -- that says when a partisan gerrymandering has gone too far.
so at best we're looking at a partial victory where maybe a gerrymander as extreme as wisconsin is not allowed, but a partisan gerrymander somewhat short of that extreme is acceptable.
this would translate to more fairness in congressional elections and a pickup of a few seats in the house for democrats on average, but it's not the holy grail of anything.
legislatures (particularly republican ones) will continue to gerrymander to the full extent of what they can get away with, it just might be a bit harder for them to get away with quite so much. until they find a creative way around it, and you can bet they'll be looking for that before the ink is dry on the decision.
i'll be thrilled with a victory here, but i'm not expecting anything earth-shattering even if we win.
BigmanPigman
(51,623 posts)for others states who wouldn't be allowed to gerrymander any longer.
unblock
(52,303 posts)the question is, exactly what precedent?
if there's some test that says "too much" gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but a little is ok, then we'll still have the same process, just maybe not quite as egregious.
BigmanPigman
(51,623 posts)to get around any limitations and restrictions. $$$$ speaks loudly.
BumRushDaShow
(129,362 posts)to draw the districts. I believe that is one of the efforts that Holder is engaged in and several states (I believe California is one) have (or planned to) implement this.
unblock
(52,303 posts)that's not the sort of thing courts usually insist on.
BumRushDaShow
(129,362 posts)Marthe48
(17,011 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,362 posts)Marthe48
(17,011 posts)Ohio is #10th.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)now that it's here and haven't been watching. PTSD from November 8 perhaps.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)If you guys have ever seen our map, you would be gobstruck....it is staggeringly blatant......I have been praying all day.
PearliePoo2
(7,768 posts)http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-cautious-optimism-challengers-wisconsin-redistricting-case/
snip:
Today may have been only the second day of the Supreme Courts new term, but it may also prove to be one of the biggest. The justices heard oral argument in Gill v. Whitford, a challenge to the redistricting plan passed by Wisconsins Republican-controlled legislature in 2011. A federal court struck down the plan last year, agreeing with the plaintiffs that it violated the Constitution because it was the product of partisan gerrymandering that is, the practice of purposely drawing district lines to favor one party and put another at a disadvantage. After roughly an hour of oral argument this morning, the justices seemed to agree that partisan gerrymandering is, as Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged, distasteful. But there was no apparent agreement about whether courts could or should get involved in policing the practice.
BumRushDaShow
(129,362 posts)There are 4 Constitutional Amendments that relate to voting. If this gerrymandering is in violation of any of them (e.g., causes abridging of the vote by dilution of it, which was part of the reason for the VRA), then they SHOULD be "getting involved", particularly when it comes to Congressional districts, which are federal. If they want to argue "states rights", then they could try to claim that as an out and send the issue back to the state courts. But IMHO, that should ONLY be for state legislative districts.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)How would they feel if the gerrymandering were in favor of Democrats. It's ridiculous we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to make precinct lines represent actual neighborhoods and common areas. The shit they've pulled is blatantly obvious.
It's unfortunate their desire for power doesn't embrace having good ideas that actually help as many people as possible in their constituency. They are the party of the ultra rich and the ultra rich have proven over and over again they care for no one but themselves (seeing how they are willing to throw the whole world into the garbage to keep taking money they don't need but billions of other people do).
So republicans have to resort to deception to peddle their bullshit. And we have to go to court to attempt to get them to stop cheating. Normal people, good people don't need to be forced to work out fair rules we can all live with.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)to its former identity: the State of Wisconsin.
* By Christian, I am referring to the Pat Robertson/Sarah Palin/Ted Cruz sense of the word.
Greybnk48
(10,171 posts)I truly believe that.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)then they get to make the maps even worse in 2020.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Last time this came up in a big way, they pretty much acknowledged that it existed but lacked an objective methodology to say "Yes, this is it" along with intent.
There's a new test that could balance it out but it has to be accepted.
Marthe48
(17,011 posts)a kennedy
(29,697 posts)Keeping fingers crossed he does the right thing.