NC: CDs 1 & 12 struck down

[politicallefty]

You are naive about partisan redistricting. The decision by the SCOFLA was a partisan decision itself.

I'll take your word for it on the judicial aspects in this case, but I don't think I'm naive as to what a liberal majority would do. The Supreme Court of Florida only interpreted its own redistricting amendment. I'm only looking at past Supreme Court precedence to say that partisan redistricting could be curtailed through judicial rulings. To be more specific, I note Vieth v. Jubelirer, a plurality ruling essentially meaning Justice Kennedy's more moderate stance is technically controlling. However, there were four votes in dissent. If a partisan redistricting case reaches SCOTUS with a liberal majority, I do believe they'll move to establish restrictions. (Do you also believe that a new liberal majority on SCOTUS would not move to overturn Citizens United?)

I don't know what standards might be established, just that there would be action taken by a newly liberal Court. Even now, I don't think Justice Kennedy is a lost cause. I just believe he hasn't found the proper remedy. A judicial standard could even be as simple something like the Miller Test and obscenity (at least something along the lines of "you know it when you see it"). Or it could be something more rigorous. A liberal SCOTUS would not maintain the non-justiciable argument with regards to partisan redistricting.

[jimrtex]

You are naive about partisan redistricting. The decision by the SCOFLA was a partisan decision itself.

I'll take your word for it on the judicial aspects in this case, but I don't think I'm naive as to what a liberal majority would do. The Supreme Court of Florida only interpreted its own redistricting amendment. I'm only looking at past Supreme Court precedence to say that partisan redistricting could be curtailed through judicial rulings. To be more specific, I note Vieth v. Jubelirer, a plurality ruling essentially meaning Justice Kennedy's more moderate stance is technically controlling. However, there were four votes in dissent. If a partisan redistricting case reaches SCOTUS with a liberal majority, I do believe they'll move to establish restrictions. (Do you also believe that a new liberal majority on SCOTUS would not move to overturn Citizens United?)

I don't know what standards might be established, just that there would be action taken by a newly liberal Court. Even now, I don't think Justice Kennedy is a lost cause. I just believe he hasn't found the proper remedy. A judicial standard could even be as simple something like the Miller Test and obscenity (at least something along the lines of "you know it when you see it"). Or it could be something more rigorous. A liberal SCOTUS would not maintain the non-justiciable argument with regards to partisan redistricting.

There is already a case on partisan redistricting before the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is likely to celebrate partisan redistricting since in this case it favors the Democratic Party.

The state prosecutes private individuals for obscenity. I suppose a citizen might have a right to prosecute - but wouldn't that be based on a belief of the individual, rather than knowledge? Do you really want the courts deciding whether what a plaintiff believes is obscene is obscene?

Why would the state prosecute itself for political gerrymandering? But suppose that a private action was brought. What standard could the SCOTUS impose?

Do you think that the government should regulate speech based on who is speaking or what their message is?

The government could regulate by imposing fines (ie seizing property) or imprisoning speakers. I assume you would not favor direct suppression such as beating or shooting speakers, or destroying TV and radio transmission antennas, seizing and burning newspapers and books, requiring your computer to have software that would prevent reception of views critical of the state, etc.

I don't see why you regard regulation/supression of speech as a liberal idea.

[politicallefty]

There is already a case on partisan redistricting before the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is likely to celebrate partisan redistricting since in this case it favors the Democratic Party.

The state prosecutes private individuals for obscenity. I suppose a citizen might have a right to prosecute - but wouldn't that be based on a belief of the individual, rather than knowledge? Do you really want the courts deciding whether what a plaintiff believes is obscene is obscene?

Why would the state prosecute itself for political gerrymandering? But suppose that a private action was brought. What standard could the SCOTUS impose?

Do you think that the government should regulate speech based on who is speaking or what their message is?

The government could regulate by imposing fines (ie seizing property) or imprisoning speakers. I assume you would not favor direct suppression such as beating or shooting speakers, or destroying TV and radio transmission antennas, seizing and burning newspapers and books, requiring your computer to have software that would prevent reception of views critical of the state, etc.

I don't see why you regard regulation/supression of speech as a liberal idea.

I'm sorry I forgot about this topic, as it got buried (so I hope you don't mind my late reply). Which partisan redistricting case are you referring to? If a judicial standard to restrict partisan redistricting obtained a SCOTUS majority, I would expect a ruling striking down gerrymanders under both parties. It wouldn't be some ad hoc ruling against one state or another. I would look to the dissents in Vieth.

The relation to obscenity is only in terms of current Supreme Court precedent. I didn't say I agreed with it. On a personal standpoint, I think all obscenity laws are in direct violation of the First Amendment. I do believe obscenity is protected speech. That was not my point. I was only pointing out a previous standard that defined jurisprudence that has restricted obscenity laws. In other words, I was pointing out obscenity standard and how it might relate to partisan redistricting. I believe that Vieth will be overturned and that a standard will be put in place. That is only a prediction about what a future Court may do and how it may establish a standard.

I think you missed my point entirely when it comes to Citizens United. There are four justices sitting on the Court right now that were in dissent. If President Obama or if Democrats win the White House this fall, Justice Scalia's seat will virtually certainly go to someone that will overturn Citizens United. I do not agree with that decision, but once again, that wasn't my point. I was only stating what I believe will happen the composition of a future Supreme Court. I would hope you would not believe that any Supreme Court with five Democratic appointees would vote to uphold Citizens United, particularly when a number of them voted for McConnell v. FEC (which Citizens United overturned).

[jimrtex]

I'm sorry I forgot about this topic, as it got buried (so I hope you don't mind my late reply). Which partisan redistricting case are you referring to? If a judicial standard to restrict partisan redistricting obtained a SCOTUS majority, I would expect a ruling striking down gerrymanders under both parties. It wouldn't be some ad hoc ruling against one state or another. I would look to the dissents in Vieth.

The Arizona redistricting case. Republican-leaning districts were deliberately overpopulated.

The relation to obscenity is only in terms of current Supreme Court precedent. I didn't say I agreed with it. On a personal standpoint, I think all obscenity laws are in direct violation of the First Amendment. I do believe obscenity is protected speech. That was not my point. I was only pointing out a previous standard that defined jurisprudence that has restricted obscenity laws. In other words, I was pointing out obscenity standard and how it might relate to partisan redistricting. I believe that Vieth will be overturned and that a standard will be put in place. That is only a prediction about what a future Court may do and how it may establish a standard.

Will any law passed with partisan intent be subject to judicial review?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Citizens United overturned a government regulation.

It is quite unlikely that the SCOTUS will grant a request for a rehearing. Kagan was the Solicitor General at the time of Citizens United. She would have to recuse herself.

So you will have to devise/contrive a new regulation that will muzzle speech that is critical of a candidate or government official. What about speech that is critical of government policies? What is your proposed law?

[/]

What would you guys rate the new districts (Safe, Likely, Lean, Toss-Up, etc)?

[JerryArkansas]

What would you guys rate the new districts (Safe, Likely, Lean, Toss-Up, etc)?

The 13th may be a tossup-lean for republicans.

[windjammer]

We don't even know if they are going to accept the map.

[jimrtex]

We don't even know if they are going to accept the map.

The plaintiffs brief is really weak because they don't have a case.

[politicallefty]

The Arizona redistricting case. Republican-leaning districts were deliberately overpopulated.

I'm unaware of districts being drawn that are unequal in population. Admittedly, I haven't read through the entirety of that case. I have read nothing to the effect of Wesberry v. Sanders having been overturned. However, I don't recall that being the issue at hand in the Arizona case. I believe the issue in that was the constitutional authority of a state legislature to control Congressional redistricting. This Court ruled that independent commissions are permissible. In any event, that only has to do with the lawmaking ability of either the legislature or the people acting in a lawmaking fashion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do want to say that I'm not trying to elaborate on my thoughts on the issue. I'm only saying what I think is possible or probably if the vacant seat on SCOTUS is replaced by someone of a more liberal mindset than Justice Scalia (i.e. someone that would fit in closely with the current four liberals on the Court).

If you look back to Vieth, there was only a four-Justice plurality that found partisan redistricting to be nonjusticiable. Justice Kennedy more or less agreed, but didn't rule out that there could be possible standards that could be put into place. There were four votes, however, that did not agree and were willing to hear the merits of that particular case. (Two are no longer on the Court, though I doubt their replacements would vote differently.) I'm not sure what the possible standards might be, but yes, I do believe a new Court could hear cases on the merits. That's why I mentioned the "I know it when I see it" standard. That's a minimal standard, but it would almost certainly overturn maps in Maryland and North Carolina (prior to current judicial action). I don't think it would cover maps like Michigan, which disguises its partisan intent quite well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't agree with your characterization of the issue, but your point about a rehearing is valid and I hadn't considered that before. (Once again, I'm only looking at what a new Court might do. Replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal Justice would be a massive transformation at the Court.) However, I would note that there was a scathing dissent when the issue came back before the Court in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock where the dissent actively wanted to reopen the case, including Justice Kagan. Any state could pass a law in direct contravention of Citizens United that could potentially change jurisprudence for the entire country if they believed they had an amenable Court, just as I'm certain a state would try to do if conservatives had a majority without Kennedy on the issue of abortion. If the right to an abortion was expressly overturned by a Court, I do believe that would reactivate laws that are currently unconstitutional once enforced. In our country, as I'm sure you already know, unconstitutional laws are not erased. They are instead rendered unenforceable. Going back to the main issue here, it could be as simple as a state passing its own McCain/Feingold. A new SCOTUS could uphold it and the federal government may subsequently attempt enforcement of the same that remains in the US Code.

[jimrtex]

The Arizona redistricting case. Republican-leaning districts were deliberately overpopulated.

I'm unaware of districts being drawn that are unequal in population. Admittedly, I haven't read through the entirety of that case. I have read nothing to the effect of Wesberry v. Sanders having been overturned. However, I don't recall that being the issue at hand in the Arizona case. I believe the issue in that was the constitutional authority of a state legislature to control Congressional redistricting. This Court ruled that independent commissions are permissible. In any event, that only has to do with the lawmaking ability of either the legislature or the people acting in a lawmaking fashion.

Immediately after their decision as to whether the initiative could be used to legislate the manner in which congressional elections were conducted, they accepted a second case from Arizona which was whether deliberately overpopulating Republican legislative districts violated equal protection.

Strictly speaking, the cases are not related, because the plaintiffs were not contesting whether the initiative could be used to regulate legislative districting. There really can be no question on that issue. The fundamental purpose of a constitution is to prescribe how a government is constituted. For example, this would include the structure of the legislature, and how it is elected. In the United States, constitutions are considered to be an action of the People, who have a natural right to determine how they are governed.

If the redistricting commission in Arizona had not abused its authority, it is less likely that anyone would have brought suit about its existence for congressional redistricting. It is likely that the SCOTUS understood the underlying reason for the first case, and took the second case as a result.

As far as the US Constitution goes, it doesn't matter whether gerrymandering is done by the legislature, governor, state courts, or a redistricting commission. Reynolds v Sims overturned the provisions in the Alabama constitution regarding legislative redistricting (not that Alabama would bother to notice, and change its constitution, even though it is the longest, and most amended state constitution in the country).

The SCOTUS also probably recognized the issue from the Alabama redistricting case. In the 1990s redistricting, a number of black majority legislative districts were created. People move to where there are jobs, so population growth tends to occur outside black majority areas. By 2000, the districts created 10 years earlier were underpopulated. Rather than equalizing population, the Democratic-controlled legislature left the districts about 5% below the ideal.

By 2010, the Republicans controlled the legislature, and decided that the population of the districts should be within tighter limits. The plaintiffs in Alabama actually argued that equal population districts were racially discriminatory. The SCOTUS was too embarrassed to actually address that, and said that the legislature would of course equalize population (the legislature had argued that race had not predominated since it had been attempting to equalize population).

Merit Briefs for Harris, et al v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.

See the chart on Page 34 of the appellants brief.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do want to say that I'm not trying to elaborate on my thoughts on the issue. I'm only saying what I think is possible or probably if the vacant seat on SCOTUS is replaced by someone of a more liberal mindset than Justice Scalia (i.e. someone that would fit in closely with the current four liberals on the Court).

If you look back to Vieth, there was only a four-Justice plurality that found partisan redistricting to be nonjusticiable. Justice Kennedy more or less agreed, but didn't rule out that there could be possible standards that could be put into place. There were four votes, however, that did not agree and were willing to hear the merits of that particular case. (Two are no longer on the Court, though I doubt their replacements would vote differently.) I'm not sure what the possible standards might be, but yes, I do believe a new Court could hear cases on the merits. That's why I mentioned the "I know it when I see it" standard. That's a minimal standard, but it would almost certainly overturn maps in Maryland and North Carolina (prior to current judicial action). I don't think it would cover maps like Michigan, which disguises its partisan intent quite well.

In Shaw v Reno, Justice O'Connor referenced the "I know it when I see it" standard, specifically with regard to NC-12. The legislature has now removed NC-12 (in its brief for the new plan, the legislature noted that the joint redistricting committee had voted 33-1 to eliminated NC-12).

The problem is that the SCOTUS will make rulings based on its partisan alignment. The liberal justices will look at Page 34 above, and refuse to see.

How can partisan redistricting be judiciable when justices (and judges) are themselves partisan?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't agree with your characterization of the issue, but your point about a rehearing is valid and I hadn't considered that before. (Once again, I'm only looking at what a new Court might do. Replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal Justice would be a massive transformation at the Court.) However, I would note that there was a scathing dissent when the issue came back before the Court in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock where the dissent actively wanted to reopen the case, including Justice Kagan. Any state could pass a law in direct contravention of Citizens United that could potentially change jurisprudence for the entire country if they believed they had an amenable Court, just as I'm certain a state would try to do if conservatives had a majority without Kennedy on the issue of abortion. If the right to an abortion was expressly overturned by a Court, I do believe that would reactivate laws that are currently unconstitutional once enforced. In our country, as I'm sure you already know, unconstitutional laws are not erased. They are instead rendered unenforceable. Going back to the main issue here, it could be as simple as a state passing its own McCain/Feingold. A new SCOTUS could uphold it and the federal government may subsequently attempt enforcement of the same that remains in the US Code.

Since Citizens United courts have overturned a number of state laws regarding campaign spending.

Now consider this: moveon.org is a corporation. They helped organize the Anti-Trump demonstration in Chicago, 4 days before a federal election in which Trump is a candidate. Should it be illegal for moveon.org to advertise the demonstration?