Arizona redistricting goes to Supreme Court

[Devils30]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/02/3575068/the-supreme-court-just-took-a-case-that-could-make-partisan-gerrymandering-even-worse/

I think this seems bad for Dems but would backfire much worse on the GOP. Sure, they could undo the Arizona commission but wouldn't this precedent give the Democrats a chance to gerrymander California? If Ds controlled Cali they would wipe most of the GOP off the map. Probably could do a 48-5 or 49-4 or so map if they tried. In the long run New Jersey and Washington would also help the Dems. Cali alone would probably solve half of the Dems House problems nationwide.

[Skill and Chance]

Interesting.  Might a ruling on this also affect a governor's ability to veto redistricting?  California would presumably outweigh everything else, unless the FDF initiative went down with it in Florida.

[Devils30]

Not sure but the GOP would regret this if in 2020 the Dems control CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA- not of which is really too far-fetched. Additionally, a Dem governor could force neutral maps in PA, VA and possibly FL, OH, WI, MI depending on 2018 elections.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The article is nuts to think Bush v. Gore would have an impact upon this case.  Leaving aside that the point being raised was in Rhenquist's concurrence was supported by only three justices including Rhenquist and significantly not including Kennedy, holding that state courts couldn't make decisions because they were not the state legislature is a long way from saying that a procedure established by initiative could not do so since as the article points out, both Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant and Smiley v. Holm make clear that the term "state legislature" in the U.S. Constitution is not to be so narrowly construed as this lawsuit is trying to assert.  At worst, I'd expect a 6-3 ruling upholding the commission and conceivably it could be as high as 9-0, tho Thomas is the justice most likely to sympathize with the plaintiffs.

[bedstuy]

The article is nuts to think Bush v. Gore would have an impact upon this case.  Leaving aside that the point being raised was in Rhenquist's concurrence was supported by only three justices including Rhenquist and significantly not including Kennedy, holding that state courts couldn't make decisions because they were not the state legislature is a long way from saying that a procedure established by initiative could not do so since as the article points out, both Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant and Smiley v. Holm make clear that the term "state legislature" in the U.S. Constitution is not to be so narrowly construed as this lawsuit is trying to assert.  At worst, I'd expect a 6-3 ruling upholding the commission and conceivably it could be as high as 9-0, tho Thomas is the justice most likely to sympathize with the plaintiffs.

I think mentioning the concurrence is just a way of bringing up a potential argument against the redistricting commission's Constitutionality, if only because there are scant few arguments on that side.  It seems like this should be 9-0 easily.  This is a question of state level separation of powers and really just belongs to the Arizona court system.

[Devils30]

Every dem should hope the Supreme Court essentially lets us trade 3 seats in Arizona for dozens more in California New Jersey and washington.

[Skill and Chance]

I hope that it will lead to a constitutional amendment (would probably have to be by the state conventions method) that would bar politicians from drawing their own districts.  Period.

[Devils30]

I just don't understand the GOP reasoning on this. They have A LOT more to lose than the Democrats. In exchange for 2 and maybe 3 seats in Arizona, the Dems could easily turn Cali into a 48-5 map up from 38-15. Not to mention Dems likely gain another 3 seats in Washington state as it is democratic controlled.

Those dozen seats is only the start:
Let's say Dems win the NJ governorship in 2017. A 6-6 map can easily become 10-2 by packing the GOP vote in conservative northwest jersey and the jersey shore into two districts. New York has several GOP state senators in seats that vote democratic nationally and it may only be a matter of time before they become wiped out like southern dems were in the 90s and early 00s. Add another 4-5 or so seats to democrats in NY.

Now if the Dems control governorships in PA, VA, WI, MI, OH, FL in 2020 they can wipe out a GOP gerrymander with or without the Supreme Court ruling on this redistricting case. That alone would cancel a dozen or so GOP held seats. This doesn't even mention the possibly of democrats winning the governorships in GA and AZ in 2018 or winning everything in Colorado, Nevada.

Overall just with CA, WA, NJ, NY the democrats could gain 15-20 seats alone, basically wiping out the GOP house majority. Factoring in the other possibility of the Dems gaining governorships in the above mentioned states and it looks like a 25-30 seat democratic gain alone. The GOP should be very careful what they wish for.

[Skill and Chance]

I just don't understand the GOP reasoning on this. They have A LOT more to lose than the Democrats. In exchange for 2 and maybe 3 seats in Arizona, the Dems could easily turn Cali into a 48-5 map up from 38-15. Not to mention Dems likely gain another 3 seats in Washington state as it is democratic controlled.

Those dozen seats is only the start:
Let's say Dems win the NJ governorship in 2017. A 6-6 map can easily become 10-2 by packing the GOP vote in conservative northwest jersey and the jersey shore into two districts. New York has several GOP state senators in seats that vote democratic nationally and it may only be a matter of time before they become wiped out like southern dems were in the 90s and early 00s. Add another 4-5 or so seats to democrats in NY.

Now if the Dems control governorships in PA, VA, WI, MI, OH, FL in 2020 they can wipe out a GOP gerrymander with or without the Supreme Court ruling on this redistricting case. That alone would cancel a dozen or so GOP held seats. This doesn't even mention the possibly of democrats winning the governorships in GA and AZ in 2018 or winning everything in Colorado, Nevada.

Overall just with CA, WA, NJ, NY the democrats could gain 15-20 seats alone, basically wiping out the GOP house majority. Factoring in the other possibility of the Dems gaining governorships in the above mentioned states and it looks like a 25-30 seat democratic gain alone. The GOP should be very careful what they wish for.

On the flip side, it could invalidate Fair Districts Florida, in which case, the GOP could go for 20R/7D there and, less importantly, IA could be gerrymandered 3R/1D. 

So it would be:

CA: R-10
WA: R-2 (can't really do a safe 9/1)
NJ: R-4

and

AZ: D-3
FL: D-3
IA: D-1

Net would be D+7, and that's if D's can get full control of WA/NJ back.  But remember, it blocks any attempts to impose commissions in other states that have the referendum.  Ohio for example could be locked in at 8R/8D with a commission and Michigan could be 7R/7D.  Also, the initiative could be used to force fair maps in UT (SLC Dem district), NE (where NE-02 could lean D in the 2020's) and IL (huge R net gain).

[Devils30]

The GOP would have to win all branches in Iowa state govt and in 2020 it could have a democratic gov again elected in 2018. Same with Florida along with all the others I mentioned. I think the GOP would have a tough time doing a 20-7 Florida map without overextending itself. Some of the GOP held and formerly GOP held seats in Miami are probably not going back ever again. The demographic trends there have ended this.

[Skill and Chance]

Horrifying thought: What if they rule that even governors have no say in redistricting?  The entire South and non-IL/MN Midwest would be GOP gerrymanders for the next 50 years.  The 58+% Obama states would also be monstrosities for the Dems.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Horrifying thought: What if they rule that even governors have no say in redistricting?  The entire South and non-IL/MN Midwest would be GOP gerrymanders for the next 50 years.  The 58+% Obama states would also be monstrosities for the Dems.

The court would have to directly overturn the precedent of Smiley v. Holm 285 U.S. 355 (1932) which ruled directly on this point when it upheld the validity of a gubernatorial veto of a redistricting plan.  It certainly couldn't do that with this case, and I doubt they would even if there was a relevant case.

[Devils30]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/the-pernicious-effects-of-gerrymandering-20141203

I can't help but root for the GOP to win this case! I would gladly sacrifice 2 seats in AZ for another 8 in Cali and eventual likely control over the WA, NJ process in 2020.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I found it ironic but as I read that linked article where he talks about the reduction in the diversity of districts, my mind kept thinking of PA, and specifically the seat Gerlach drew for himself in 2002. It was competative (topping the list for three straight cycles) yet was Republican enough for him to survive and at the same time set him up well for a potential statewide run at some point since it contained a sampling of rural, suburban, upscale and working class voters.


That said, a gerrymander is still a gerrymander (it was ugly) and the current map is even worse.

The 2008 data skewed the commission's competativeness metrics but I am a big fan of commissions for state's with eggregious legislature's and therefore I hope court upholds the commission's existance.

[muon2]

Even if SCOTUS throws out the AZ commission, there is still another path to keep partisan gerrymandering out of the process. That involves a mechanism like IA uses. IA has an independent agency draw the maps based on statutory criteria and then submit them to the legislature for approval. The legislature can only vote them up or down and is limited to three different offerings from the agency. A commission could do the work of the agency, and as long as the legislature takes the final vote there would be no constitutional question.

[KCDem]

RIP representative government.

[Devils30]

But why would the GOP be okay with this? They really stand to lose so much. They pretty much already control all the big red states without commissions while Dems are restricted in Cali, Washington, New Jersey. If Ds won those 3 and took the New York State senate in a big 2020, that's probably a gain of 14-18 seats right there.

Now let's say Gwen Graham wins the Florida governorship in 2018 and the courts draw the congressional and legislative maps after she vetoes GOP proposals. With changing demographics the Ds win the Florida legislature and then control another big state.

Also look at PA if Wolf wins again and can't rule out Ds winning governors in WI, MI, OH to at least force a court drawn neutral map. Democrats can show outrage at this if the Supreme Court actually rules on it (something tells me they'll dismiss it or not really decide anything) but overturning the Arizona commission almost certainly helps Democrats more than the GOP.

[publicunofficial]

Remember: Gerrymandering's only frowned upon when Democrats do it.

[Skill and Chance]

But why would the GOP be okay with this? They really stand to lose so much. They pretty much already control all the big red states without commissions while Dems are restricted in Cali, Washington, New Jersey. If Ds won those 3 and took the New York State senate in a big 2020, that's probably a gain of 14-18 seats right there.

Now let's say Gwen Graham wins the Florida governorship in 2018 and the courts draw the congressional and legislative maps after she vetoes GOP proposals. With changing demographics the Ds win the Florida legislature and then control another big state.

Also look at PA if Wolf wins again and can't rule out Ds winning governors in WI, MI, OH to at least force a court drawn neutral map. Democrats can show outrage at this if the Supreme Court actually rules on it (something tells me they'll dismiss it or not really decide anything) but overturning the Arizona commission almost certainly helps Democrats more than the GOP.

Unless their next step is to overturn the 1930's precedent discussed above that allows gubernatorial vetoes of redistricting prior to 2021.  I wouldn't put it past this SCOTUS.

[Bojack Horseman]

Every dem should hope the Supreme Court essentially lets us trade 3 seats in Arizona for dozens more in California New Jersey and washington.

Don't forget New York!

[Skill and Chance]

Every dem should hope the Supreme Court essentially lets us trade 3 seats in Arizona for dozens more in California New Jersey and washington.

Don't forget New York!

The legislature referred the NY commission system to the ballot, so that one probably only falls if Iowa also falls.

[muon2]

Every dem should hope the Supreme Court essentially lets us trade 3 seats in Arizona for dozens more in California New Jersey and washington.

Don't forget New York!

The legislature referred the NY commission system to the ballot, so that one probably only falls if Iowa also falls.

I'm not sure how IA ever falls. The IA legislature has to approve any redistricting plan. It's only the drawing of the districts and conduct of hearings that are done independently.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/the-pernicious-effects-of-gerrymandering-20141203

I can't help but root for the GOP to win this case! I would gladly sacrifice 2 seats in AZ for another 8 in Cali and eventual likely control over the WA, NJ process in 2020.

The same Supreme Court that voted 5-4 to make Bush be President can vote 5-4 to only allow non-partisan commissions in Democratic states.

[hopper]

Remember: Gerrymandering's only frowned upon when Democrats do it.

No other Democrats on this board(not sure if you did)cried when the GOP did it in 2011.

Arizona has done some weird things like SB 1070, the denial for a bakery to refuse to make a wedding cake  for a same-sex marriage couple and now this. Even Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming aren't this crazy but they are more Republican than Arizona is.

[morgieb]

What's the legal justification for striking down commissions?