Comments on: Gerrymandering for ALL! And we are screwed!

Gerrymandering for ALL! And we are screwed!

plemeljr — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:15:45 -0800

Veith v. Jubelirer affirmed by the US Supreme Court
In a 5-4 opinion, the US Supreme Court upheld that gerrymandered Congressional districts are legal and overruled Davis v. Bandemer. Full opinions available. For a background on why this is a structural constitutional problem and why we should be worried about it, read Gerrymandering - "The Great Contradiction".

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:18:28 -0800

Justice Scalia, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Thomas concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist. Kennedy concurs, but adds in his own decision, "There are, then, weighty arguments for holding cases like these to be nonjusticiable. However, they are not so compelling that they require the Court now to bar all future partisan gerrymandering claims. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, makes clear that the more abstract standards that guide analysis of all Fourteenth Amendment claims suffice to assure justiciability of claims like these." Basically, Scalia et al state that claims cannot appear before the court, and never should in the future. Kennedy concurs, but states that the door should not be closed for all time. Stevens, Souter joined by Ginsburg, and Breyer dissent.

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:28 -0800

Actually, that should say, "nearly overruled Davis v. Bandemer" since Kennedy did not affirm that portion of the opinion.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:55:36 -0800

Justice O'Connor... concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist. No imaginary multi-pronged test this time, Sandy?

By: Witty

Witty — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:07:31 -0800

women

By: cbrody

cbrody — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:39:04 -0800

Scary. Especially so because no one cares.

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:50:24 -0800

"(the President) shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law". let's see: the man who wins in November will probably appoint two (Stevens' getting old, Rehnquist too, O'Connor and Bader Ginsburg have had health problems) or even more Justices in the next four years

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:11:23 -0800

Isn't O'Connor usually the swing judge?

By: rocketman

rocketman — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:53:37 -0800

Buy your handguns now.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:14:40 -0800

Stevens will live forever. He's a rock star, in my book, and writes the best dissents since Holmes.

By: crunchburger

crunchburger — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:55 -0800

Good post, plemljr, thanks. I didn't know this was being decided, although I live in a state that has had much redistricting controversy. I'm going over to SCOTUS blog to look for more.

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:03:53 -0800

I was in the court today when this was announced, and the normal stoicism of the other members was a bit lacking. Some looked quite annoyed indeed.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:11:31 -0800

I wish they would just use county lines or zipcodes or something to determine election districts. Every state now has ridiculous districts, always drawn for political gain.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:17:39 -0800

This is good, with images of especially contorted districts.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:39:05 -0800

I wish they would just use county lines or zipcodes or something to determine election districts. If they used counties, it would be impossible to have equal numbers of people in each district. And states can create, abolish, modify, and join together counties at will anyway, so it wouldn't be any deterrent to determined gerrymanderers. Ditto zipcodes, except that it would be the feds screwing with the lines. Every state now has ridiculous districts, always drawn for political gain. One of the problems is that it is impossible to come up with a set of district lines that doesn't give some people an advantage and others a disadvantage. Every set you can draw will be better or worse, for some group, than another set. There's no such thing as a neutral set of districts (or lack thereof). You could get a set that was vaguely neutral in expectation if the districts were drawn using some heavily-random algorithm. But the districts you'd actually get any given time would still electorally advantage some people at the expense of others. What might happen is that we might see Democratic-controlled states gerrymandering back until both sides, having punished each other for a few rounds, settle back into a more cooperative equilibrium.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:11:17 -0800

This is a rogue Supreme Court. They're a mad elephant run amok. (Great, disturbing post plemeljr)

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:16:55 -0800

Coming soon to a ~~theatre~~ Supreme Court near you - "Your rights as a citizen exist only at the suffrage of the President - who can jail you at will for almost anything and then throw away the key, or ship you out of the country to be tortured !"

By: riviera

riviera — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:50:43 -0800

Thank goodness for the Boundary Commission, I say. The American electoral system seems to be getting more like that Blackadder episode every day (shown seven years ago on Saturday, for all those who remember staying up for Portillo).

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:03:04 -0800

This is madness...and bodes badly for the Texas situation as well. Damn.

By: skoosh

skoosh — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:48:21 -0800

Statewide single transferable vote systems - what's so hard about that? Is there anything standing in the way? (I mean, besides maybe the Voting Rights Act... )