Supreme Court punts on partisan gerrymandering

[Pandaguineapig]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

[Gass3268]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

Hahahaha at FL and PA being gerrrymandered! You should become a comedian.

[Pandaguineapig]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

Hahahaha at FL and PA were gerrrymandered! You should become a comedian.

I don't know how you can honestly say that the PA map wasn't a gerrymander

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-with-gerrymandering-yet/

Is there any truth to this claim, or is 538 still useless at anything that doesn't involve math?

Kagan suggests this avenue in her concurrence.  But the concurrence only got the votes of the four liberals.  I see nothing in the majority opinion that suggests any conservative is likely to join with this line of thinking (though it seemed to be a framing that was attractive to Kennedy in the oral arguments).

[Lachi]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

Hahahaha at FL and PA were gerrrymandered! You should become a comedian.

I don't know how you can honestly say that the PA map wasn't a gerrymander

It's literally a fair map though, on any normal year, it would elect a 10-8 R delegation. in 2016, Republicans won 53.91% of the house vote, which proportionally elect 10 republicans (9.704 quotas rounded up).

[Antonio the Sixth]

That makes sense, thanks Muon and Nick for the clarification.

Still, this is looking bleak. Again, you can't fight a forest fire with a watergun.

[Badger]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

Hahahaha at FL and PA were gerrrymandered! You should become a comedian.

I don't know how you can honestly say that the PA map wasn't a gerrymander

It's literally a fair map though, on any normal year, it would elect a 10-8 R delegation. in 2016, Republicans won 53.91% of the house vote, which proportionally elect 10 republicans (9.704 quotas rounded up).

Was about to post this. That Trumpists can convince themselves of anything even contrary to mathematical empirical data is proven yet again.

[Koharu]

How disappointing.

This would really be tragic if SCOTUS manages to avoid reigning his blatant political corruption in the end. I know it's not over yet, but with Kennedy probably closer to the exit than usual, there is certainly a reason to be nervous. I also get that the efficiency gap was flawed, but I hope in the end they can settle on something, even if it starts out somewhat weak. It doesn't need to be perfect right now. We just need to get these gerrymanders scaled back a good bit so voters can once in a while elect the people they want and not whatever power hungry political party forced onto them. Whatever test they start with can be improved over time when the opportunities present themselves.

Otherwise, if the courts can't do what they are here to do and check the abuse of power of the other branches, then this country is hopeless, and quite frankly, has no business going around the world wagging a finger at other countries and peddling American-style "democracy", which apparently comes loaded with election rigging.

Echoing Virginia here. As a Wisconsin resident, I am extremely disappointed. This gerrymander has changed the direction of our state and the damage goes back quite a ways already. While we can't change the past, we need to fix the issue sooner rather than later, and every delay makes a fix that much less likely to happen.

[Torie]

The case as to why the PA map drawn by the court is a Dem gerrymander lite map is well stated in the New York Times. In each and every instance where there were reasonable options as to how to draw the lines, the court picked the Dem friendly option, and in most cases the more Pub friendly one seemed more appropriate to me, like having a CD take in Luzerne, Lachawanna and Monroe counties only, since that makes up almost the perfect population for a CD. But the court did not do that.

[krazen1211]

I think the argument is, by deliberately packing certain voters into districts that are not expected to have a competitive election, you are depriving them of a meaningful choice. That has nothing to do with partisanship.

This is of course malarkey. When the Michigan legislature drew congressional districts they drew them in such a way that McCain only won 2.

[krazen1211]

It's literally a fair map though, on any normal year, it would elect a 10-8 R delegation. in 2016, Republicans won 53.91% of the house vote, which proportionally elect 10 republicans (9.704 quotas rounded up).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected proportional representation.

Of course, as even the plaintiffs noted, the Wisconsin assembly map is full of fair and compact districts. Occam's razor suggests that the winning party is simply superior at the elections and the loser party is simply inferior.

[Politician]

I think the argument is, by deliberately packing certain voters into districts that are not expected to have a competitive election, you are depriving them of a meaningful choice. That has nothing to do with partisanship.

This is of course malarkey. When the Michigan legislature drew congressional districts they drew them in such a way that McCain only won 2.

*cough**cough* Obama won Michigan by 17%, of course the GOP gerrymander there cracked.

If the Wisconsin House map is so "fair", why do Republicans control 2/3 of the seats despite winning 1/2 the votes?

[krazen1211]

I think the argument is, by deliberately packing certain voters into districts that are not expected to have a competitive election, you are depriving them of a meaningful choice. That has nothing to do with partisanship.

This is of course malarkey. When the Michigan legislature drew congressional districts they drew them in such a way that McCain only won 2.

*cough**cough* Obama won Michigan by 17%, of course the GOP gerrymander there cracked.

If the Wisconsin House map is so "fair", why do Republicans control 2/3 of the seats despite winning 1/2 the votes?

The Wisconsin Republican party is better at elections.

[Politician]

I think the argument is, by deliberately packing certain voters into districts that are not expected to have a competitive election, you are depriving them of a meaningful choice. That has nothing to do with partisanship.

This is of course malarkey. When the Michigan legislature drew congressional districts they drew them in such a way that McCain only won 2.

*cough**cough* Obama won Michigan by 17%, of course the GOP gerrymander there cracked.

If the Wisconsin House map is so "fair", why do Republicans control 2/3 of the seats despite winning 1/2 the votes?

The Wisconsin Republican party is better at winning elections.

As demonstrated when Tommy Thompson was elected Senator in 2012.

[krazen1211]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

Yes, there were amicus briefs filed by Democrats in Davis v Bandemer supporting legislative driven redistricting. These democrats are peddling newfound nonsense. It is textbook fake news.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

It would probably be best to have independent redistricting committees or computer-generated districts but this is probably a good result, there is little in actual constitutional language to bar gerrymandering and ruling it unconstitutional could lead to partisan judges gerrymandering the maps themselves like in PA and Florida. Also given that the position most democrats have on gerrymandering is "it's ok when we do it" I have a feeling that their concerns with gerrymandering will go away if the democrats take control of more state governments this year

Hahahaha at FL and PA were gerrrymandered! You should become a comedian.

I don't know how you can honestly say that the PA map wasn't a gerrymander

It's literally a fair map though, on any normal year, it would elect a 10-8 R delegation. in 2016, Republicans won 53.91% of the house vote, which proportionally elect 10 republicans (9.704 quotas rounded up).

Was about to post this. That Trumpists can convince themselves of anything even contrary to mathematical empirical data is proven yet again.

No, if you just got a trained monkey with no understanding of partisanship to draw a PA map, it would probably be 11-7 or 12-6 for the GOP because PA Dems pack themselves in so much that drawing a "proportional" map actually requires Democratic gerrymandering.