Supreme Court strikes down NC-12 and NC-1 as racial gerrymanders

[Brittain33]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/22/supreme-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-maps-congress/100855582/

I am so confused as to which maps are being struck down. Is it the current one where NC-12 is wholly in Mecklenburg County?

[Brittain33]

Analysis here

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92675

[windjammer]

Nah, that was the previous map. They upheld the lower ruling decision

[Brittain33]

Nah, that was the previous map. They upheld the lower ruling decision

What does this mean for redrawing the NC map, if anything?

[windjammer]

Nah, that was the previous map. They upheld the lower ruling decision

What does this mean for redrawing the NC map, if anything?

The new map won't be redrawn, but challenges to the new map will be easier

[Gass3268]

Thomas joined the liberals here because he doesn't like black majority districts.

[krazen1211]

These congressional districts were already redrawn.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Thomas joined the liberals here because he doesn't like black majority districts.

Good. Nice to see him consistently apply his beliefs without regard to whether or not the party that nominated him benefits.

[Angrie]

Thomas joined the liberals here because he doesn't like black majority districts.

Good. Nice to see him consistently apply his beliefs without regard to whether or not the party that nominated him benefits.

Thomas seems to be somewhat more consistent in that way than someone like Scalia ever was (example: Ashcroft v. Raich, where Scalia seems to have decided in the opposite way that you would expect because the issue had to do with marijuana rather than something else). So while I certainly disagree with Thomas on almost everything, I can respect him for that.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Thomas joined the liberals here because he doesn't like black majority districts.

Good. Nice to see him consistently apply his beliefs without regard to whether or not the party that nominated him benefits.

Thomas seems to be somewhat more consistent in that way than someone like Scalia ever was (example: Ashcroft v. Raich, where Scalia seems to have decided in the opposite way that you would expect because the issue had to do with marijuana rather than something else). So while I certainly disagree with Thomas on almost everything, I can respect him for that.

My God,  Scalia screwed the pooch on Raich. For him it basically came down to Drugs r bad > let the states decide. Even O'Connor was willing to say that banning the cultivation of a plant for personal use was not commerce. Then scalia flip flopped with the nfib v sebelius dissent.

[Skill and Chance]

It's worth noting that there is actually some really bad news for redistricting reformers tucked away in here.  Justice Kennedy just signed a dissent that basically argues that partisan map drawing is none of the judiciary's business.  He is thought to be the swing vote on this issue (unless Gorsuch stuns the world, of course). 

[hopper]

The 2003-2013 NC-12 is as bad as the 2013-2016 NC-12 gerrymander and the 2003-2013 NC-12 was a Dem Congressional Map as opposed to the 2013-2016 GOP Congressional Map.

The 2017 NC-01 looks a little better than the 2013-2016 NC-01. The 1993-1998 NC-01 is an awful gerrymander just looking at it.

[BuckeyeNut]

It's worth noting that there is actually some really bad news for redistricting reformers tucked away in here.  Justice Kennedy just signed a dissent that basically argues that partisan map drawing is none of the judiciary's business.  He is thought to be the swing vote on this issue (unless Gorsuch stuns the world, of course).

True. But, the Whitford v. Gill case provides an actual metric for measuring voter disenfranchisement through partisan gerrymandering with the Efficiency Gap equation, and that's very close to what Kennedy is on the record for wanting. Though his signing on to Alito's dissent is not a good sign.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thomas joined the liberals here because he doesn't like black majority districts.

Good. Nice to see him consistently apply his beliefs without regard to whether or not the party that nominated him benefits.

He still was a partisan hack in the Bush v. Gore ruling, though.