Is gerrymandering constitutional?

[cinyc]

The Freedom of Association argument makes no sense. Why is my Freedom of Association any less impacted by a supposedly neutral map where I’m “naturally” put in a district with a bunch of Democrats who I don’t agree with and vote against, instead of a Gerrymandered map where I get either the same result or (by some miracle in a state like New York) get put in a district that actually elects my Republican candidate of choice? This cannot be solved, except by proportional representation.

Nevermind the fact that there’s no such thing as “neutral” redistricting principles or map-makers to begin with. Every choice has a partisan effect.

But “Freedom of Assocation” seems to be the argument Justice Kennedy is most likely to buy, unfortunately.

As far as I’m concerned, a practice that is actually named for Elbridge Gerry’s political packing of districts in Massachusetts in 1812, and has existed since the First Congress can’t suddenly become unconstitutional in 2017. It just doesn’t work that way.

[cinyc]

The Freedom of Association argument makes no sense. Why is my Freedom of Association any less impacted by a supposedly neutral map where I’m “naturally” put in a district with a bunch of Democrats who I don’t agree with and vote against, instead of a Gerrymandered map where I get either the same result or (by some miracle in a state like New York) get put in a district that actually elects my Republican candidate of choice? This cannot be solved, except by proportional representation.

Because what the Constitution forbids is for the government to single you out based on your political ideology. When your state legislature intentionally dilutes your voting power based on your party affiliation, that is viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of your First Amendment rights.

The government is doing that either way by putting me in a district with a bunch of Democrats. Whether that is under the guise of supposedly "neutral" principles doesn't matter. The effect is the same - my voice is being diluted by Democrats.

And yes, the answer is somewhat clouded by my view that no redistricting principles are really neutral and always involve political calculations of some stripe. In other words, there's always (allegedly) discriminatory intent. Even the Muon rules depend on a calculation that cities need not remain whole. That tends to favor Democrats, as cities tend to be Democratic, and being able to split cities allows perfectly legal abominations like the city of Chicago dominating Illinois' maps through baconstrips.

Redistricting has always been politically motivated, and always will be. How it is done is a political question that the courts should and traditionally have stayed out of, absent VRA issues. It's a thicket that the courts really should avoid falling into.

Unfortunately, my prediction is that Justice Kennedy will cave, and create some unworkable balancing test that will muddy the redistricting waters for decades to come.

[cinyc]

It is not the muon2 rules that cause cities to be gratuitously chopped (such an activity is penalized) but rather the VRA. Indeed under the muon2 rules, if cities are gratuitously macro-chopped, the erosity score tanks. Such a map would never hit the Pareto optimal frontier, unless "saved" by the VRA.

Causes is a little bit strong. Allows is more what I am thinking.

If I were to write the rules, cities would be the municipalities of first order that would not allowed to be chopped, even above counties. And yes, I have both non-political and political reasons for making that choice - cities are the most basic form of government that people elect, and the main basis of identity for most people, especially where school district line follow city boundaries. What municipality you live in matters. It would also have the practical effect of not allowing Democrats to chop cities to Gerrymander.

[cinyc]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

[cinyc]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I think the Cleveland-Akron VRA district is on very shaky grounds (it crosses metro lines, for starters, and is likely losing BVAP, like much of Northeastern Ohio is losing VAP). The mapmakers may choose to keep it, but it might not be strictly necessary after the next census - if it even was this time around. It might not even be possible to draw a black majority district in NE Ohio after 2020.