Oh redraw the damn map whenever you want.
June 28, 2006 1:16 PM Subscribe
The Supreme Court rules that state legislatures may redistrict at any time, while not harming minorities. The ruling is heavily influenced by Vieth v. Jubelirer, a Scalia opinion based on the premise that there is no objective way to draw a district (How the Census Bureau is trying to help make one). This ends a saga including amid-decade redistricting and subsequent rebellion in the Texas Statehouse.
i'm glad the way is now clear for majority democrats in new york and california to gerrymander without compunction!
ah, crap, it's only OK if you are republican. thanks a lot, supreme court!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:40 PM on June 28, 2006
ah, crap, it's only OK if you are republican. thanks a lot, supreme court!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:40 PM on June 28, 2006
So what's a good state for the Democrats to redistrict? It has to have some Republican representatives but a Democrat-controlled legislature and governor.
posted by smackfu at 1:48 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by smackfu at 1:48 PM on June 28, 2006
I don't know if there's a good state for the Democrats to redistrict right now. CA, MA, and NY would all become good candidates if they had Democratic governors...
posted by mr_roboto at 1:53 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by mr_roboto at 1:53 PM on June 28, 2006
smackfu: It's not as sexy as California or New York, but watch Colorado try to do just that in 2007 for in-state reps, and in 2010 (if not before) for federal districts.
Dems hold a majority in both houses for the first time in 40 years, and demographics are shifting to solidify that position. The republican governor is term limited, and the based on the primaries, CO will be less one (R) Gov. and (at least) one (R) Congressman come fall. It has the potential to get ugly... so I suppose we'll see if both parties are equally sleezy.
posted by zeypher at 1:56 PM on June 28, 2006
Dems hold a majority in both houses for the first time in 40 years, and demographics are shifting to solidify that position. The republican governor is term limited, and the based on the primaries, CO will be less one (R) Gov. and (at least) one (R) Congressman come fall. It has the potential to get ugly... so I suppose we'll see if both parties are equally sleezy.
posted by zeypher at 1:56 PM on June 28, 2006
Of course there is an objective way. One could use a mathematical formula to tile the surface with least-perimeter shapes having equivalent populations. One could have objective, non-partisan people just sit down and create the district map. Either approach meets all reasonable definitions of "objective". Either approach is easy.
What isn't objective is letting political parties draw the map. There isn't any way to let a political party draw the map that's going to be objective, I quite agree.
Canada, for instance, initially had it wrong (like the U.S.) but then revised its laws and got redistricting mostly right. Easy to do.
The syllabus in the older case says: "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."
This is deeply humorous - so much so that I think the court reporter is having some fun - if you understand the role of the Supreme Court, which is to create judicially discernible standards. The Court is saying that because they won't do their job, they can't do their job.
One might suspect that the fact that in these two cases Republicans were doing the gerry-mandering had some bearing on the decisions. It is astonishing but perhaps true that if the party not in control of the Supreme Court actually wanted a decision against gerry-mandering, the best thing they could do might be to gerrymander so terribly in some state that they control that the Supreme Court would be forced to rule against them.
posted by jellicle at 1:57 PM on June 28, 2006
What isn't objective is letting political parties draw the map. There isn't any way to let a political party draw the map that's going to be objective, I quite agree.
Canada, for instance, initially had it wrong (like the U.S.) but then revised its laws and got redistricting mostly right. Easy to do.
The syllabus in the older case says: "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."
This is deeply humorous - so much so that I think the court reporter is having some fun - if you understand the role of the Supreme Court, which is to create judicially discernible standards. The Court is saying that because they won't do their job, they can't do their job.
One might suspect that the fact that in these two cases Republicans were doing the gerry-mandering had some bearing on the decisions. It is astonishing but perhaps true that if the party not in control of the Supreme Court actually wanted a decision against gerry-mandering, the best thing they could do might be to gerrymander so terribly in some state that they control that the Supreme Court would be forced to rule against them.
posted by jellicle at 1:57 PM on June 28, 2006
I suppose we'll see if both parties are equally sleezy.
posted by zeypher
If the Dems don't fight fire with fire, they're doomed.
posted by taosbat at 1:58 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by zeypher
If the Dems don't fight fire with fire, they're doomed.
posted by taosbat at 1:58 PM on June 28, 2006
a Scalia opinion based on the premise that there is no objective way to draw a district
Maybe Mr. Scalia should go take some math and stats courses because that's fucking bullshit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:07 PM on June 28, 2006
Maybe Mr. Scalia should go take some math and stats courses because that's fucking bullshit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:07 PM on June 28, 2006
The real constitutional amendment we need is one that requires non-partisan redistricting, such as the system that Iowa needs. There is no single greater threat to our democratic republic than the partisan conspiracy to make every House seat uncompetitive.
posted by norm at 2:07 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by norm at 2:07 PM on June 28, 2006
Crap. I obviously meant the system that Iowa uses. And just for funsies, here's a description.
posted by norm at 2:09 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by norm at 2:09 PM on June 28, 2006
There is no single greater threat to our democratic republic than the partisan conspiracy to make every House seat uncompetitive.
posted by norm
We have met the enemy and s/he is us...
posted by taosbat at 2:11 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by norm
We have met the enemy and s/he is us...
posted by taosbat at 2:11 PM on June 28, 2006
state legislatures may redistrict at any time, while not harming minorities
The first link does not say "while not harming minorities."
Is this indeed the case that there are set criteria now established for redistricting that must be met?
Or must redistricting be challenged after the fact if "partisan" redistricting really turns out to be minority-based redistricting?
posted by Mr. Six at 2:35 PM on June 28, 2006
The first link does not say "while not harming minorities."
Is this indeed the case that there are set criteria now established for redistricting that must be met?
Or must redistricting be challenged after the fact if "partisan" redistricting really turns out to be minority-based redistricting?
posted by Mr. Six at 2:35 PM on June 28, 2006
how is "harm" defined?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 2:42 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 2:42 PM on June 28, 2006
Of course there is an objective way.
But there's no fair or neutral way. Every possible set of districts gives some people an advantage and others a disadvantage, relative to some other set of districts.
You could create districts randomly. This might be fair or neutral ex ante or in expected-value terms, but the actual districts created would still help some people and hurt others.
One could have objective, non-partisan people just sit down and create the district map.
These people don't exist. All people have interests or preferences, and only fools would not act on those interests or preferences when given an opportunity to do so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:53 PM on June 28, 2006
But there's no fair or neutral way. Every possible set of districts gives some people an advantage and others a disadvantage, relative to some other set of districts.
You could create districts randomly. This might be fair or neutral ex ante or in expected-value terms, but the actual districts created would still help some people and hurt others.
One could have objective, non-partisan people just sit down and create the district map.
These people don't exist. All people have interests or preferences, and only fools would not act on those interests or preferences when given an opportunity to do so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:53 PM on June 28, 2006
KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II–A and III, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, AND BREYER, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B and II–C, and an opinion with respect to Part II–D, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined as to Part III.
All clear now?
posted by brain_drain at 3:19 PM on June 28, 2006
All clear now?
posted by brain_drain at 3:19 PM on June 28, 2006
But there's no fair or neutral way. Every possible set of districts gives some people an advantage and others a disadvantage, relative to some other set of districts.
If you think fair means, "every person - regardless of political opinion - has an equal chance of getting elected in this district." That's a straw man. Even in our two party system, no one is asking for, "each candidate has a 50% chance of election".
What opponents of gerrymandering want is an indifferent method of setting the boundaries. A way where the borders of districts are not determined by the political effects of those borders.
For example,
1) Take a grid with as many cells N as the state should have districts. If no such grid exists, a grid of 2xN or 3xN should be used instead. The maximum possible required size of this grid is NxN.
2) Divide the total number of people in the state by the number of cells. This gives us the proper number of people per cell.
3) beginning at one corner (lets say... North East) and working out in a clockwise spiral pattern each population center is added to a cell until that cell contains its limit of people.
4) In the case of a large city, or other very dense population center requiring division, proceed recursively. That is, treat the city as if it were a state and follow steps 1,2, and 3, above.
I propose this not because I think it's the best solution, but because it's so obviously indifferent to the political manipulation our current system provokes. It works like clockwork, and a computer could run it without human intervention.
There are any number of better possible schemes, but all share this basic feature. I fail to see how this scheme is not neutral.
posted by Richard Daly at 3:24 PM on June 28, 2006
Richard Daly*, proposing apportionment that would be "obviously indifferent to the political manipulation our current system provokes": eponysterical!
And, of course, a mathematical solution could be devised that is neither politically nor racially manipulable. I know: let's let Diebold do the software!
*The "e" is understood.
posted by rob511 at 3:48 PM on June 28, 2006
And, of course, a mathematical solution could be devised that is neither politically nor racially manipulable. I know: let's let Diebold do the software!
*The "e" is understood.
posted by rob511 at 3:48 PM on June 28, 2006
Well, it's been a lot of fun having the US alongside us as a democratic nation. God speed, guys, and we'll miss ya.
With love,
A Brit
posted by athenian at 3:49 PM on June 28, 2006
With love,
A Brit
posted by athenian at 3:49 PM on June 28, 2006
It will be ugly, but it might sweep out a lot of dead wood.
posted by caddis at 3:54 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by caddis at 3:54 PM on June 28, 2006
this is an appalling decision--we're going to have redistricting each time the power in a state changes (or it'll just ensure that the balance never changes and that whoever's in now will always be able to fix it so they stay in power). Absolutely unfair.
posted by amberglow at 4:01 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by amberglow at 4:01 PM on June 28, 2006
...whoever's in now will always be able to fix it so they stay in power)...
posted by amberglow
As far as I can see, the new game in town is for the Dems & Reps to create as many safe districts as Diebold will allow. Whoever wins that game becomes the permanent ruling party.
posted by taosbat at 4:22 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by amberglow
As far as I can see, the new game in town is for the Dems & Reps to create as many safe districts as Diebold will allow. Whoever wins that game becomes the permanent ruling party.
posted by taosbat at 4:22 PM on June 28, 2006
There's another good reason the core holding was 7-2 -- there's already a very effective political-judicial solution for gerrymandering if it really bothers people. The (elected at large) governor can veto the lines, which throws it to the local courts for a non-partisan, compact redraw.
It will be interesting to me to see if redistricting becomes an issue in California this November. The 2001 lines were already quite partisan in favor of the Democrats, but could be redrawn to be significantly more partisan, still, if Schwarzenegger is outsted. (There are a dozen or so Southern California districts which were drawn with heavy supermajorities of people of color, which could be attenuated enough to (in theory) wipe out two or three Republican districts while still re-electing all the old minority Democrats.
posted by MattD at 4:58 PM on June 28, 2006
It will be interesting to me to see if redistricting becomes an issue in California this November. The 2001 lines were already quite partisan in favor of the Democrats, but could be redrawn to be significantly more partisan, still, if Schwarzenegger is outsted. (There are a dozen or so Southern California districts which were drawn with heavy supermajorities of people of color, which could be attenuated enough to (in theory) wipe out two or three Republican districts while still re-electing all the old minority Democrats.
posted by MattD at 4:58 PM on June 28, 2006
ROU_Xenophobe: These people don't exist. All people have interests or preferences, and only fools would not act on those interests or preferences when given an opportunity to do so.
Somehow we manage to have non-partisan professionals do this in Canada.
The Economist: In elections, it is said, voters choose politicians; in redistricting, it is the other way round.
posted by russilwvong at 5:17 PM on June 28, 2006
Somehow we manage to have non-partisan professionals do this in Canada.
The Economist: In elections, it is said, voters choose politicians; in redistricting, it is the other way round.
posted by russilwvong at 5:17 PM on June 28, 2006
As said above this is a non-issue in Canada. There are, what 200 countries on earth? Couldn't the US do a little research project and see how some of the others have gotten this right. We spend alot of time on metafilter moaning about politics in the US. This issue is probably the most important. Why even vote if the voting system is SO obviously rigged in this manner?
posted by sety at 6:26 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by sety at 6:26 PM on June 28, 2006
A picture says it all. If this doesn't get you pissed off, what would?
source: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1099030
posted by sety at 6:29 PM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]
source: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1099030
posted by sety at 6:29 PM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]
The Economist article (from 2002) provides an excellent analysis. Thanks, sety.
posted by russilwvong at 6:43 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by russilwvong at 6:43 PM on June 28, 2006
Somehow we manage to have non-partisan professionals do this in Canada.
No, you have professionals whose partisan preferences aren't known to you doing this. This is not the same thing. The idea that they don't have preferences about who gets elected, alone of the 30 million people in Canada, is ludicrous.
A system like Iowa's operates differently: by requiring the consent of both parties to get anything done, it limits excesses. It harnesses the self-interest of both parties instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Though arguably a formally nonpartisan system like Canada's does that to, where the final constraint is the consent of Parliament and therefore the consent of the governing party.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:39 PM on June 28, 2006
No, you have professionals whose partisan preferences aren't known to you doing this. This is not the same thing. The idea that they don't have preferences about who gets elected, alone of the 30 million people in Canada, is ludicrous.
A system like Iowa's operates differently: by requiring the consent of both parties to get anything done, it limits excesses. It harnesses the self-interest of both parties instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Though arguably a formally nonpartisan system like Canada's does that to, where the final constraint is the consent of Parliament and therefore the consent of the governing party.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:39 PM on June 28, 2006
Yes, thanks for the Economist link.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:30 PM on June 28, 2006
posted by joe lisboa at 9:30 PM on June 28, 2006
Party A divides every state into two districts and then Party B decides which of the two districts they get.
Then Party B takes that district and cuts it into two pieces from which Party A gets to pick one.
Repeat until you have the necessary number of districts.
Well, my 5th grade math teacher said this was the best way to distribute a cake so I'm sure minds smarter than I can figure out how to adjust it for distributing a state.
posted by obfusciatrist at 10:34 PM on June 28, 2006
Then Party B takes that district and cuts it into two pieces from which Party A gets to pick one.
Repeat until you have the necessary number of districts.
Well, my 5th grade math teacher said this was the best way to distribute a cake so I'm sure minds smarter than I can figure out how to adjust it for distributing a state.
posted by obfusciatrist at 10:34 PM on June 28, 2006
No, you have professionals whose partisan preferences aren't known to you doing this. This is not the same thing. The idea that they don't have preferences about who gets elected....
I also don't think that "partisan preferences" and "preferences" are really the same thing. Put simply, while I agree with you that it's ludicrous to assume that there are people who place no value on who gets elected (and even if there were, lots of us would mistrust them as crazy), I disagree with the idea there aren't any people who value principles of neutrality in process over specific outcomes. Some people may well believe in the voters over the Democratic and Republican parties.
posted by weston at 10:55 PM on June 28, 2006
I also don't think that "partisan preferences" and "preferences" are really the same thing. Put simply, while I agree with you that it's ludicrous to assume that there are people who place no value on who gets elected (and even if there were, lots of us would mistrust them as crazy), I disagree with the idea there aren't any people who value principles of neutrality in process over specific outcomes. Some people may well believe in the voters over the Democratic and Republican parties.
posted by weston at 10:55 PM on June 28, 2006
I know it's unpopular, but don't states generally have the right to set up their districts any damn way they please without the Feds getting involved so long as the Voting Rights Act isn't violated?
posted by klangklangston at 8:46 AM on June 29, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 8:46 AM on June 29, 2006
Well, my 5th grade math teacher said this was the best way to distribute a cake so I'm sure minds smarter than I can figure out how to adjust it for distributing a state.
This simple strategy is incredibly old. I have heard the anecdote of two men trying to divide fairly a herd of cattle and it ends with this line:
"It takes two theives to make an honest deal!"
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:11 AM on June 29, 2006
This simple strategy is incredibly old. I have heard the anecdote of two men trying to divide fairly a herd of cattle and it ends with this line:
"It takes two theives to make an honest deal!"
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:11 AM on June 29, 2006
sety: The only one of those that really appears ridiculous is the Florida 22nd. But, it's not as that district places beach-front communities with their own problems and needs in one district.
As for some of the objective ways to do redistricting offered here, I paraphrased Scalia, to whom I should have deferred on the phrasing. Everything suggested thus far makes as little sense as political redistricting does right now and seem to have their own unintended consequences, unfairness and hell, even a blind eye to helping anyone at all.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:23 AM on June 29, 2006
As for some of the objective ways to do redistricting offered here, I paraphrased Scalia, to whom I should have deferred on the phrasing. Everything suggested thus far makes as little sense as political redistricting does right now and seem to have their own unintended consequences, unfairness and hell, even a blind eye to helping anyone at all.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:23 AM on June 29, 2006
The only one of those that really appears ridiculous is the Florida 22nd.
Are you serious? Other than that one, the other districts look okay to you? The Illinois 4th, for example?
This is beyond gerrymandering. It's like fractal-mandering.
All congressional district maps.
By way of comparison, here's a map of the electoral districts for provincial elections in British Columbia. Here's my riding.
posted by russilwvong at 10:35 AM on June 29, 2006
Are you serious? Other than that one, the other districts look okay to you? The Illinois 4th, for example?
This is beyond gerrymandering. It's like fractal-mandering.
All congressional district maps.
By way of comparison, here's a map of the electoral districts for provincial elections in British Columbia. Here's my riding.
posted by russilwvong at 10:35 AM on June 29, 2006
I'm pretty sure the electoral boundaries between District 34 and 56 (Skeena, which appears to be the Skeena valley) are along physical boundaries. It's a mountainous, sparsely populated area.
posted by russilwvong at 11:04 AM on June 29, 2006
posted by russilwvong at 11:04 AM on June 29, 2006
Captaintripps: But, it's not as that district places beach-front communities with their own problems and needs in one district.
I think that statement gets to the root of how things got to the way they are today.
The poor people are put in a different district than the rich property owners by the beach because they have different needs. Ok fine, I don't agree with this but at least there is some logic to it.
Now I ask:
I thought a representative was suppose to represent all his constituents rich or poor equally? And for electing the president shouldn't a poor persons vote be equal to the rich beach front owners?
Nice "squarish" independent districts cause the rich/poor/black/white all to be in the same district. The rich persons vote counts the same as the poor persons. External biases are minimized.
posted by sety at 12:02 PM on June 29, 2006
I think that statement gets to the root of how things got to the way they are today.
The poor people are put in a different district than the rich property owners by the beach because they have different needs. Ok fine, I don't agree with this but at least there is some logic to it.
Now I ask:
I thought a representative was suppose to represent all his constituents rich or poor equally? And for electing the president shouldn't a poor persons vote be equal to the rich beach front owners?
Nice "squarish" independent districts cause the rich/poor/black/white all to be in the same district. The rich persons vote counts the same as the poor persons. External biases are minimized.
posted by sety at 12:02 PM on June 29, 2006
My thought on redistricting is that we should just make the House state-wide like the Senate and use a proportional representation system for voting. In the modern era of cheap long distance, email, websites, and jet travel, the need to constrain a representative to a particular geographic area is a silly throw-back to an era when representatives travelled on horseback and spent comparatively little time in Washington.
posted by jedicus at 1:03 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by jedicus at 1:03 PM on June 29, 2006
"The rich persons vote counts the same as the poor persons. External biases are minimized."
That's an excellent way to make sure that no minority candidates are elected. And, if you'll note, the one district that the SC had a problem with was one that diluted latino voting rights.
posted by klangklangston at 6:52 AM on June 30, 2006
That's an excellent way to make sure that no minority candidates are elected. And, if you'll note, the one district that the SC had a problem with was one that diluted latino voting rights.
posted by klangklangston at 6:52 AM on June 30, 2006
« Older NBA Gets Some Balls | All You Need Is Love Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It's not the laughing hysterically at headlines like this that gets me: it's the inability to stop...
posted by Unregistered User at 1:33 PM on June 28, 2006