Justices rule 5-4 that independent panels can draw election district lines
Source: Washington Post
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that independent commissions may draw electoral district lines.
The case arose after Arizona voters opposed to congressional gerrymandering had taken the power away from state legislators.
The Supreme Court has largely stayed out of partisan gerrymandering cases, unable to agree on a test that would allow the court to discern when expected political maneuvering rises to the level of being unconstitutional.
Arizona voters tried to take care of the problems themselves in 2000, when they turned over redistricting to an independent commission. But Republicans who control the legislature say the Constitution gives them the right draw congressional districts, and they cannot be cut out of the power.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-rule-5-4-that-independent-panels-can-draw-election-district-lines/2015/06/29/c91269aa-1ae6-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html
By Robert Barnes June 29 at 10:33 AM
iandhr
(6,852 posts)To use Joe Biden's words
riversedge
(69,537 posts)would not agree to these panels--just like WI has done. We are gerrymandered till 2020.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)With referendum processes. This decision gives the greenlight to try to create these independent commissions through a ballot referendum. The Arizona one was created by the voters
Kber
(5,043 posts)And, of course, those that have a referendum mechanism, which may be most but not all (?).
For example, Texas (Yes Texas!) has a lot more democrats than you'd think by looking at state and federal representatives. Austin is actually broken up into multiple pie pieces so that the more liberal residents in any given neighborhood can be "balanced out" by more conservative areas outside the city.
It is not inconceivable that the voters in a state like Texas (or NJ, where I live) may someday get fed up with being continually underrepresented and vote in a fairer system. That's exactly what happened in supposedly rock solid red Arizona.
A more subtle change, maybe (hopefully) is that lawmakers might realize their seats aren't as secure as they thought and drift back towards the actual majority of their voters. Long shot, but this case at least leaves that door cracked, of only a tiny bit.
JustAnotherGen
(31,631 posts)Look how Lance's district (7th) was expanded to secure his seat.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Texas in particular. Rove drew the districts so places like Austin (which is VERY blue) had some district borders extend miles and miles along a narrow strip out of town so that people in town would have to share a representative elected by Redneckistan.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)We ate gerrymandered until 2020 in the states with out referendums
Warpy
(110,746 posts)It did stop short of ending gerrymandering, unfortunately, but that's not what the suit was about.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's really hard to beat corruption. This is a start. We need to follow thru and see that the panels are truly independent.
Democat
(11,617 posts)The next president is going to have a huge influence on the future of the court.
riversedge
(69,537 posts)to get that message out in a meaningful way.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)If GOP wins in 2016 we could be seeing 6-3 and 7-2 Decisions written by Scalia and then Alito for the next 30 years.
If Hillary wins (Face it, its going to be Hillary) then Kagan and Sotomayor will be writing those Majority decisions for the next 30 years!!
Robbins
(5,066 posts)we should just let her help screw working people and unions and let people die in endless wars and let her stand back while social safety net is destroyed for corporations and endless war on chance on SC.Wrong
loudsue
(14,087 posts)I don't get the Hillary love at all.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can't have a Republican president.
Ham Sandwich
(23 posts)And he has no negatives, and the latest attacks have been laughable.
Hillary remains invisible from the media. Curious.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)How can you say that Mrs. Clinton is going to be the winner? I find this quite offensive to those who support other Democratic Party candidates!
And it's just plain rude!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Predictions. It is not offensive to do that
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Please stop it.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And if you say that you find it offensive, you get told that others have the right to make their own predictions, or others have the right to their opinions.
I say to that, people have the right to make their own predictions and opinions AFTER they have done the research, and are well versed on both sides of an argument. Not beforehand.
djnicadress
(39 posts)With this ruling does it mean that states can pass a law allowing the people to vote constitutional amendments? That can be a good and bad thing.
Kber
(5,043 posts)Hadn't considered that angle. I have no idea, but I'd also love to hear what others think.
longship
(40,416 posts)The Constitution leaves the districting process to the states. Not so the amendment process which is explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
One worry is that a Constitutional Convention can be convened by 2/3 of state legislatures. That would be very dangerous given the number of legislatures in GOP hands.
See Article V for details .
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'm referring to the process of a referendum to approve an amendment to the state constitution.
If you mean an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that process is set forth in Article V of the Constitution itself. State-by-state ratification is done by the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions, as Congress directs. There's no provision for ratification by popular vote. Doing it that way would pretty clearly violate the Constitution, regardless of today's ruling.
calimary
(80,522 posts)Glad you're here! That is a good question. One thing is certain, underneath it all. Our opponents are of the mindset that - if they don't like the way something's set up, or settled law is established, they will go to the ENDS OF THE EARTH to find a way to get around it.
Shit - I remember that little girl in the bush/cheney justice department, monica goodling, SAYING THAT. When she had to testify in Congress about making baldly political appointments, vettings, and firings of state attorneys, which they were doing on steroids. She'd been recruited as a fresh new "law school" graduate from one of the religious schools - I forget if it was Liberty "University" or Regent "University", where rosy-cheeked, dewy-eyed young grads with their brand new law decrees were being stovepipes directly into that Justice Department. And she SAID they were looking for ways "to get around" whatever laws or regulations or restrictions were preventing them from packing the department with political paisans.
These folks are ALWAYS looking for a work-around. A reach-around. ANY way to manipulate, fuck with, or stretch completely outta shape, whatever the guidelines or laws or regulations or restrictions are - that prevent them from doing whatever the fuck they want, IN ORDER TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA. They're ALWAYS looking for ways to sneak. Because, at its most basic, what they want or advocate is usually quite counter to the will of the majority, or the laws of the land, or the regulations or restrictions or limits that are put in place to curb greed or short-sightedness or prejudice of some sort. They're ALWAYS looking to tilt the playing field. Why? Because they know they can't win on a level playing field. They know they don't get their way when they have to follow - and strictly adhere to - the rules, laws, regulations, restrictions, limitations, or guidelines.
Please keep something very important in mind when observing that side of the aisle. Because it's a deep-down-in-the-bone-marrow fundamental about these adversaries of ours:
These are the original "NOBODY tells ME what to do!" people. This is WHO THEY ARE. Like Monica Lewinsky once put it, during some interview back in the day - recounting her memories of being two years old (repeat - TWO YEARS OLD) and sticking out her little dimpled chin and stamping her chubby little foot and yelling at her mom "NO ONE IS THE BOSS OF ME!"
djnicadress
(39 posts)I don't think some people are understanding what I am asking In this ruling it was saying legislature can also mean the people.
Article. V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. article v also says 3/4 of when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States. Whats to stop a state from passing a law that any proposed amendments sent by congress shall be voted by the people.
druidity33
(6,428 posts)Never could anyone suppose that a State ballot initiative could alter the US Constitution in any way. States also have Constitutions and those can be amended as a result of "the will of the people" (ie, ballot initiative, voting, State Judicial system, etc). I don't see how Article V has any bearing on the current ruling.
Cha
(295,543 posts)Jon Favreau ?@jonfavs
Of all the recent SCOTUS decisions, Arizona has the biggest potential to make America a functioning democracy again.
4:36 AM - 29 Jun 2015 68 68 Retweets
71 71 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/06/29/rise-and-shine-1059/
ChazInAz
(2,528 posts)Our astonishingly corrupt legislature has been frothing at the mouth ever since. We still have a way to go to straighten out the districts, here.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Justice Kennedy again delivered the tie breaking vote.
Let a wave of non-legislature controlled, citizen-controlled, independent, scientific re-districting begin...I am actually shocked, in a good way, on this one.
Since the cons won the other two decisions today, how can the media let them get away with the "lawless, unelected judges in black robes" blabbering without being called out as the idiots they are?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)question everything
(47,211 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)The plan is working in California, and now it can spread to other states. AS Democrats, we were looking at beyond 2020 after new census date would change some of these gerrymandered Republican strongholds, but now we can hope to see faster progress in states that allow public referendums.
Most Americans don't understand, or care, about the impact of gerrymandered districts on their communities and states, but everyone supports fairness, and that's what will unravel these laws.
calimary
(80,522 posts)They're FINALLY focusing on where the root of the problem is. You have to dig down as you would in a garden, and pull the weeds out by the roots. So what we need to do in this case is to MAKE SURE that we take back as many state legislatures and governors' mansions as possible by the year 2020. Work up to it in 2016 and 2018 but the target is 2020 - by which date, hopefully, our side will have notched some very beneficial victories.
The decade mark - the "Zero Year" - 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, etc - THAT IS WHEN THE CENSUS IS TAKEN. Every ten years. And when the census is taken, what do they do with it? Besides all the studies of the changing demographics, the census determines Congressional representation. Where the population has moved. Where there are more people and where there's more representation needed. Where the populations in some districts are shrinking, and therefore Congressional representation will follow accordingly, and where the population is growing, necessitating changes in the Congressional districts to respond accordingly. Now, if partisans in the legislature want to make sure to put their collective thumb on the scale, every ten years, there is redistricting, to respond and adjust to what the census just determined about population changes. The bad guys, who always want to get around the rules and try to rig the game to slam dunk a victory for their side, will use this opportunity to redraw the districts to make sure the voting results from those districts will slant securely toward them.
So we have to fight this TWO WAYS. Take back the turf of those who will decide the redistricting, AND make sure that there are independent commissions on this - THAT ARE REALLY, TRULY, HONESTLY, and GENUINELY INDEPENDENT.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)circumvent this ruling by enacting some form of corrupt legislation in order to retain their power to redistrict Arizona at will.
They are cabin boys for ALEC, and have no respect or regard for the democratic will of the people whatsoever.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)They have a huge hurdle to overcome.
They will try, but fail
BumRushDaShow
(126,624 posts)and some hope. And for here in PA, this is something that we need desperately due to stuff like this -
(yes, the red area IS a Congressional District - PA (7) drawn by teabaggers - runs through something like 6 counties).
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)BumRushDaShow
(126,624 posts)before he decided to run for Senate in 2010 (and lost to Toomey). After the gerrymandering, it went back to GOP (Pat Meehan). And before that it was Curt Weldon's district for like 20 years. But obviously it wasn't drawn that way then...
The local paper even mentioned it in an editorial -
Then there's congressional redistricting. The Legislature redraws the boundaries of Pennsylvania's congressional districts every 10 years, after the census. Harrisburg Republicans unveiled their proposal for the new map on Tuesday and (gasp, with feigned surprise) ... it's designed to help Republicans! In fact, Rep. Patrick Meehan's 7th District is now one of the most gerrymandered districts in the nation, according to the redistricting experts at Azavea, a geospatialanalysis firm.
<...>
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/Just-go-home-Harrisburg.html
Also they remarked about this -
Why did the 7th take on such a funky shape? Azavea ran some numbers and found that, whereas the current 7th district is 52.8 percent Democratic voters and 47.2 percent Republican, the new 7th district is 48.2 percent Democratic and 51.8 percent Republican.
<...>
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/Getting-to-know-the-ridiculous-new-7th-congressional-district.html
Red Knight
(704 posts)The city is overwhelmingly Democrat.
[image]?itok=h-QuarkK[/image]
But the city is carved up to limit that voting bloc.
Basically we are not represented in Congress.
BumRushDaShow
(126,624 posts)Folks can see what they did to the eastern part of the state which has the largest population and is heavily Democratic, with pockets of GOP.
PA (6) and PA (17) are as bad. This is why you see the Congressional delegation that you see out of PA but then every Presidential election, we go for the Democrat while the stupid media keeps blabbering on about "swing state".
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)BumRushDaShow
(126,624 posts)And for that, as well as the 3 Districts in Philly, they did some de facto concentration of solid blue districts to minimize their number, but they made sure they diluted the blue smaller cities and the blue rim counties around those cities to give themselves the advantage.
In 2010, there were just over 1,000,000 more registered Democrats in PA then Republicans but you wouldn't know if with 13 GOP and 5 Dem members in the PA U.S. House delegation.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)the realized they could not control the process.
This has been a really good time for liberals.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Good since it means that the lines can be drawn fairly. Bad since if that independent group happens to be Diebold then it'll be more of the same.
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)lark
(22,941 posts)This is actually standing up to big business and big politics, something Kennedy doesn't ususally do. He's usually right with the other traitors when $$ or politics is involved, but for once the general electorate won.
Whoohoo for the sanity spike at SCOTUS of last week.
mucifer
(23,324 posts)It's disgusting. I got gerrymandered out of a liberal ward.