What happens if SCOTUS overturns Reynolds v. Sims/Wesberry v. Sanders

[Skill and Chance]

Thomas was alone on this in 2016.  Allowing equalization on # of registered voters or even on # of votes in the previous election seems plausible, but even that only clearly has 3 votes.  Alito didn't join Thomas, and he has been pretty clearly right of Kavanaugh so far.  Gorsuch has made some pretty strong comments indicating he might join Thomas on this, but you're still looking at something with at most 2-3 votes today.

I personally think there are currently 3 solid votes to do so (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch). That's why I mentioned that if we get Barrett/Rao (for Ginsburg) and Hardiman/Kethledge (for Breyer); I'm positive those appointees would join Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito to do so. A 7-2 GOP majority will allow any kind of malapportionment, even allowing an unequal number of everything (people, citicens, and registered voters).

Why didn't Alito just join Thomas in 2016 if he sincerely wants to overturn Baker/Reynolds/Wesberry?

Also, Hardiman is probably more moderate than Roberts and definitely more moderate than the other 4 conservatives currently on SCOTUS.  He wouldn't be touching this with a 10 ft pole.  There's a big difference between joining a 2-3 vote dissent reflecting strongly held personal beliefs and actually being the deciding vote to overturn something this popular (or probably even the 4th vote).  The official Dem position on SCOTUS would immediately become "we are adding 10 seats on our first day back in power and they will all be professional left wing activists/Dem elected officials."   

And even if this happened, what governor in a remotely competitive state would sign something like this and risk the largest city in the state (or Upstate NY if Dems tried to give it only one CD in retaliation for what was happening in GOP trifecta states) voting unanimously against them in the next statewide election?  Exclusion of non-citizens/non-voters from apportionment is likely to be popular.  This is a different story entirely.

[I’m not Stu]

Thomas was alone on this in 2016.  Allowing equalization on # of registered voters or even on # of votes in the previous election seems plausible, but even that only clearly has 3 votes.  Alito didn't join Thomas, and he has been pretty clearly right of Kavanaugh so far.  Gorsuch has made some pretty strong comments indicating he might join Thomas on this, but you're still looking at something with at most 2-3 votes today.

I personally think there are currently 3 solid votes to do so (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch). That's why I mentioned that if we get Barrett/Rao (for Ginsburg) and Hardiman/Kethledge (for Breyer); I'm positive those appointees would join Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito to do so. A 7-2 GOP majority will allow any kind of malapportionment, even allowing an unequal number of everything (people, citicens, and registered voters).

Why didn't Alito just join Thomas in 2016 if he sincerely wants to overturn Baker/Reynolds/Wesberry?

Also, Hardiman is probably more moderate than Roberts and definitely more moderate than the other 4 conservatives currently on SCOTUS.  He wouldn't be touching this with a 10 ft pole.  There's a big difference between joining a 2-3 vote dissent reflecting strongly held personal beliefs and actually being the deciding vote to overturn something this popular (or probably even the 4th vote).  The official Dem position on SCOTUS would immediately become "we are adding 10 seats on our first day back in power and they will all be professional left wing activists/Dem elected officials."   

And even if this happened, what governor in a remotely competitive state would sign something like this and risk the largest city in the state (or Upstate NY if Dems tried to give it only one CD in retaliation for what was happening in GOP trifecta states) voting unanimously against them in the next statewide election?  Exclusion of non-citizens/non-voters from apportionment is likely to be popular.  This is a different story entirely.

The appearance of Hardiman of being more moderate is likely that he has heard very few hot-button cases. He probably isn't a relative moderate. He's probably most like Alito.

[freepcrusher]

the probability of states disobeying the court increases astronomically

[Idaho Conservative]

the probability of states disobeying the court increases astronomically

No, overturning Reynold v Simms doesn't mandate anything.  Just allows states to draw legislative districts without regard to population, if permitted by the state constitution. 

[I’m not Stu]

Alito thinks one-person-one vote was wrongly decided. Thomas and Gorsuch do too. I know there are 3 votes for this. Roberts and Kavanaugh don't have a record on this issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

[I’m not Stu]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

Malapportioned districts would completely turbocharge gerrymandering and make it far more effective than anything under current law. That’s the incentive. How would a case be brought? A legislature draws an illegal map to trigger a lawsuit. SCOTUS would then have to grant cert. This could be done in Texas, in Reed O’Connor’s trial court. It gets appealed to the 5th Circuit kangaroo court, which defies precedent. SCOTUS would then have to step in to resolve a circuit split. If SCOTUS is 7-2 GOP, it would certainly kill the apportionment precedents.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

Malapportioned districts would completely turbocharge gerrymandering and make it far more effective than anything under current law. That’s the incentive. How would a case be brought? A legislature draws an illegal map to trigger a lawsuit. SCOTUS would then have to grant cert. This could be done in Texas, in Reed O’Connor’s trial court. It gets appealed to the 5th Circuit kangaroo court, which defies precedent. SCOTUS would then have to step in to resolve a circuit split. If SCOTUS is 7-2 GOP, it would certainly kill the apportionment precedents.

Anything more than what is deemed needed to have a majority is unnecessary and therefore unnecessarily risky.

[Slander and/or Libel]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

[I’m not Stu]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

[Slander and/or Libel]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

Potentially. But 10R-3D is still pretty good for them, and they can massage that over the medium term into an even further unbalanced map. But there's also the no-short-term, smash-and-grab mindset they've been displaying. But I'm just going off of the fact that Baker v. Carr was discussing a question where Tennessee had simply not redistricted for 60+ years.

[StateBoiler]

The one thing I don't really get is where both houses are required to be one man, one vote, there's literally no reason to have a bicameral legislature. So why is Nebraska the only one that went unicameral? My state of Indiana we have a 50-seat Senate and a 100-seat House. Senate has 4-year terms and the House 2-year terms. You could make it a 150-seat unicameral legislature, reduce constituency size, and make lawmaking more effective because it no longer has to be approved by 2 houses.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The one thing I don't really get is where both houses are required to be one man, one vote, there's literally no reason to have a bicameral legislature. So why is Nebraska the only one that went unicameral? My state of Indiana we have a 50-seat Senate and a 100-seat House. Senate has 4-year terms and the House 2-year terms. You could make it a 150-seat unicameral legislature, reduce constituency size, and make lawmaking more effective because it no longer has to be approved by 2 houses.

I frequently wonder this. Maryland is really messed up. There's 47 Senate districts, and each Senate district is assigned 3 state delegates. But each district can choose how to assign those delegates. They can subdivide the senate district into three single member delegate districts, like mine they can have multi-member districts (each voter casts three votes among the candidates running, top three vote getters win seats), or they can subdivide into one individual district and one two-member district. It makes quite little sense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

[I’m not Stu]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

[Idaho Conservative]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

What state would have a 13-0?

[I’m not Stu]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

What state would have a 13-0?

North Carolina, if Wesberry v. Sanders is overruled (allowing a malapportioned house).

[Idaho Conservative]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

What state would have a 13-0?

North Carolina, if Wesberry v. Sanders is overruled (allowing a malapportioned house).

13-0 would backfire massively, no pack!  Instead an aggressive 12-1 could be drawn, pack Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, the Triangle, black belt, and Fayetteville into a single mega district and create 12 safe R seats that each favor Trump by at least 20. Still pretty biased, but a clean sweep isn't a good idea as it could massively backfire.

[I’m not Stu]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

What state would have a 13-0?

North Carolina, if Wesberry v. Sanders is overruled (allowing a malapportioned house).

13-0 would backfire massively, no pack!  Instead an aggressive 12-1 could be drawn, pack Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, the Triangle, black belt, and Fayetteville into a single mega district and create 12 safe R seats that each favor Trump by at least 20. Still pretty biased, but a clean sweep isn't a good idea as it could massively backfire.

Then Mississippi and Alabama would each create a mega-district with major cities being combined with rural counties with a large African-American population. What might Texas or Florida do?

[Skill and Chance]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

What state would have a 13-0?

North Carolina, if Wesberry v. Sanders is overruled (allowing a malapportioned house).

13-0 would backfire massively, no pack!  Instead an aggressive 12-1 could be drawn, pack Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, the Triangle, black belt, and Fayetteville into a single mega district and create 12 safe R seats that each favor Trump by at least 20. Still pretty biased, but a clean sweep isn't a good idea as it could massively backfire.

Then Mississippi and Alabama would each create a mega-district with major cities being combined with rural counties with a large African-American population. What might Texas or Florida do?

In this world, CA/NY/IL/VA/NJ/WA would retaliate by making all congressional elections statewide at large.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I said, it's hard envisage how a case to overturn could reach the Court.  There are easier ways to gerrymander that provide more control than returning to the era of one State Senator per county. It's also quite feasible to effectively gerrymander while having equally sized districts. Hence, there's no incentive to provide a case that would test whether the current court would uphold or override those rulings.

It may well be that nothing would change right away, but at the next redistricting, if the current districts are favorable to the party in power despite populations becoming unbalanced, they might just keep them in place. I think that's the danger, more than states immediately creating a whole bunch of districts with like a half dozen people in them.

Then you haven't heard of the NCGOP.  David Lewis said the only reason a 10R-3D map was drawn is because it was impossible to draw a 11R-2D map. Malapportionment would change this. An unbalanced map would either create a 12R-1D map, or a 13R-0D map.

And if they guess wrong on what the Court would do and draw a malapportioned 13R-0D map, they risk having a court strike it down and draw a more partisanly balanced map that Democrats might be able to win in a good year than the 10R-3D map that might at worst have the Democrats win one they weren't supposed to.  It's a risk no sane politician would care to take.

My whole thread is about SCOTUS upholding malapportioned maps, refusing to strike them down. a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS would uphold a 13R-0D (or 14R-0D after 2022) map. Many GOP legislators, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are not sane politicians; neither are Neomi Rao, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge, or Thomas Hardiman.

What state would have a 13-0?

North Carolina, if Wesberry v. Sanders is overruled (allowing a malapportioned house).

13-0 would backfire massively, no pack!  Instead an aggressive 12-1 could be drawn, pack Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, the Triangle, black belt, and Fayetteville into a single mega district and create 12 safe R seats that each favor Trump by at least 20. Still pretty biased, but a clean sweep isn't a good idea as it could massively backfire.

Then Mississippi and Alabama would each create a mega-district with major cities being combined with rural counties with a large African-American population. What might Texas or Florida do?

In this world, CA/NY/IL/VA/NJ/WA would retaliate by making all congressional elections statewide at large.

Except they can't. Since 1967, Congress has used its constitutional power to regulate how Federal elections are conducted to require single-member districts for the House. (2 USC 2c) Perhaps when it's Title 2's turn to be enacted into positive law instead of being an arrangement of related laws on a topic, it'll include one-man one-vote explicitly instead of depending upon Wesberry v. Sanders, but that isn't the case now.

[I’m not Stu]

Does John Roberts believe Reynolds/Wesberry/Avery were correctly decided?