Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court will today hear arguments in second gerrymandering case of the term. (Original Post) sl8 Mar 2018 OP
This is a big f&%kin' deal. flamin lib Mar 2018 #1
This is a Dem Gerrymandering case Johnny2X2X Mar 2018 #2
True, but the Wisconsin case is the opposite. sl8 Mar 2018 #3
Oral argument transcript (PDF): sl8 Mar 2018 #4

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
1. This is a big f&%kin' deal.
Wed Mar 28, 2018, 12:13 PM
Mar 2018

It strikes me that everybody agrees that gerrymandering of any sort violates the 'one man, one vote' standard the difficulty comes in how to measure the effectiveness of the gerrymandering.

In racial discrimination cases the outcome is considered proof regardless of intent. I think it easy enough to see the result in WI, the question remains how to prove the intent or, if the same standard as race is used, how to measure the methodology and thus have a way to change the outcome through process modification.

Forgive me for rambling--just kinda' doing a stream of conscience here . . .

Johnny2X2X

(18,744 posts)
2. This is a Dem Gerrymandering case
Wed Mar 28, 2018, 12:27 PM
Mar 2018

Much more likely to be voted on by the SCOTUS against gerrymandering because it's a Dem benefiting district line. Hopefully their decision will be broad enough to force fair redrawing of the maps across the land.

sl8

(13,584 posts)
3. True, but the Wisconsin case is the opposite.
Wed Mar 28, 2018, 12:38 PM
Mar 2018

It's possible that's why the SCOTUS agreed to hear two redistricting cases this term, rather than just one.

From https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/12/preparing-strike-down

The Supreme Court takes up a second gerrymandering case

A Maryland case affords the justices a second opportunity to limit partisan redistricting

Dec 11th 2017by S.M. | NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT observers scratched their heads on the evening of December 8th when the justices announced they were taking on a second major challenge to gerrymandering this term. The justices have yet to resolve Gill v Whitford, a challenge to a Wisconsin gerrymander they heard in October. Like Gill, the new case, Benisek v Lamone involves a state’s majority party charged with redrawing district boundaries in light of data from the 2010 census. And like Gill, the plaintiffs in Benisek say the legislators acted badly, flexing their muscles to unconstitutionally undermine voters from the minority party. But where Gill concerns a Republican redistricting plan, Benisek involves a challenge to a congressional district in Maryland drawn by Democrats.

...

But if the justices are ready to rule on Gill’s more fraught “partisan asymmetry” theory (colourfully derided by Chief Justice John Roberts as “sociological gobbledygook” in October) they may have a strategic consideration in mind in taking Benisek as well. Tapping the brakes on both Republican and Democratic partisan gerrymanders on the same day in late June could allay the chief's worry (expressed in the Gill hearing) that the "intelligent man in the street" will think the Supreme Court "preferred" one party to the other when taking sides on partisan gerrymandering. By telling both Republicans and Democrats to cool it, the Supreme Court could portray itself as an institution willing to police overzealous partisanship on both sides of the aisle. Being perceived by the public as an honest broker unwedded to party or ideology is an increasingly elusive but fervent wish of many of the justices—particularly the chief.



More at link
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court will today ...