SCOTUS, gerrymandering, and a new standard in how to judge its constitutionality

[Auggie]

Some background:

SCOTUS is on record as saying gerrymandering is a violation of the Constitution when it's excessive, but has lacked a standard or definition for what “excessive” is, and when it might be considered unconstitutional.

Without a standard, the courts consistently give a pass to gerrymanders, even ones that are absurdly excessive.

But now, thanks to a law professor and politcal scientist, there may be a solution ...

Salon.com

Gerrymandering, the process of drawing distorted legislative districts to undermine democracy, is as old as our republic itself. Just as ancient: the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to get involved and determine a standard for when a partisan gerrymander has gone too far.

That might be changing. During the 2000s, Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed openness to a judicial remedy, if an evenhanded measure could be devised to identify when aggressive redistricting was no longer just politics as usual.

When the pivotal swing justice looks for a standard, law professors and redistricting nerds get to work. There are now several cases related to the extreme maps drawn after the 2010 census – by Republicans in Wisconsin and North Carolina, and by Democrats in Maryland – on a collision course with the Supreme Court.

The case with the most promise to deliver a lasting judicial remedy is Whitford v. Gill, from Wisconsin, which advances a fascinating standard called the “efficiency gap.” It is the brainchild of law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee, but has an elegant simplicity that is easily understandable outside of academia. If gerrymandering is the dark art of wasting the other party’s votes – either by “packing” them into as few districts as possible, or “cracking” them into sizable minorities in many seats – the efficiency gap compares wasted votes that do not contribute to victory.

MORE: www.salon.com/2017/03/26/meet-the-man-who-may-end-gerrymandering-a-retired-wisconsin-law-professors-supreme-court-case-could-save-democracy/

------------------------------------------------------

Summation from the San Francisco Chronicle, by James Matson, Oakland (CA) attorney:

A judicial solution may be all that’s available for voters in the vast majority of states without independent districting commissions.

SNIP

A loss for the Whitford plaintiffs would likely foreclose a judicial solution to excessively partisan gerrymanders once and for all, and consign large swaths of the country to a future of unbridled redistricting warfare, where the constitutional rights of millions of American voters are accepted casualties.

A victory for the plaintiffs, and for Eric McGhee’s idea, would assure American voters contending with the antidemocratic excesses of partisan gerrymanders that the Constitution is in their corner, at long last.

(full Matson article likely available by subscription only and why I posted only the sum-up): www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/SF-political-scientist-crafts-tool-to-spot-rigged-11024527.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

------------------------------------------------------

First time I had heard of this. This is friggin' HUGE and underscores how important it is for Democrats to derail Neil Gorsuch-like nominations.

I'm sure the Washington Post, N.Y. Times, Rachel Maddow, etc. will have more on this as the trial nears. No time given in the links when this will happen, except for "soon."

Adding a comment from my friend trumad at www.rebeldems.com:

Possibly the single most important political thingy the country faces. If it was an even playing field the Republican Party would be finished. And they know it!

Amen!

[Auggie]

1. Kicking my own damn thread

1st and last time I'll do this ... promise!

[Demsrule86]

3. It is an important issue and our greatest hope to stop the GOP.

How different would Congress be without the gerrymander? We might be in the majority, but no matter what the GOP including the freedom caucus would have to answer to the people.

[Auggie]

4. Thank you for the kick

[Demsrule86]

7. Thank you for the post...very interesting.

[Wounded Bear]

2. K & R ......for visibility..

and to add a working link.

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/26/meet-the-man-who-may-end-gerrymandering-a-retired-wisconsin-law-professors-supreme-court-case-could-save-democracy/

Not sure why yours didn't work.

[Auggie]

5. Thank you Wounded Bear!

My fault on the link. Appreciate the fix!

[Wounded Bear]

6. You're welcome!

This is one of those stealth Repub moves that have made minority rule predominate of late.

I'm lucky to live in a blue state that uses a bi-partisan commission to set up the districts, and it seems to work out fairly well.

Since the 90's, Repubs have used the increasing power of computers and software to help engineer districts that work in their favor. We really need to counter that. Someone posted a link to some software designed to generate more or less balanced districts based strictly on population densities and much less on political trends organized geographically. As I recall, my state had few changes from what was actually done vs what the software put out. Wish I had a link for that now.

[fun n serious]

8. This should be our #1 issue.

Our right to vote is being challenged with Gerrymandering. We need to put a stop.

[Auggie]

9. I agree. Thank you for the kick.