General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court will today hear arguments in second gerrymandering case of the term.
Oral arguments today in Benisek v. Lamone, a Maryland redistricting case:
On edit, better case description at Ballotpedia:
https://ballotpedia.org/Benisek_v._Lamone#Footnotes
SCOTUSblog argument preview:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/03/argument-preview-second-time-term-justices-take-partisan-gerrymandering/
The Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a Wisconsin redistricting case, earlier this term.
Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_v._Whitford
SCOTUSblog argument analysis:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-cautious-optimism-challengers-wisconsin-redistricting-case/
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)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)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)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
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 states 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 Gills 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 justicesparticularly the chief.
More at link