Home | About | Donate

'Historic Opportunity': Supreme Court to Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Case


'Historic Opportunity': Supreme Court to Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Case

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In a move that has the potential to "set a landmark precedent," the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear a Wisconsin gerrymandering case alleging the Republican-controlled legislature drew congressional disticts in a way that illegally discriminates against Democratic candidates and voters.


AMEN to both!!!   O-K, being a staunch agnostic I'll admit that I really should write, "Hear!!  Hear!!"

Unless this problem is solved by 2018 there is a real danger that what little is left of our democracy will be totally erased just as democracy in South Africa was erased by those favoring apartheid in the previous century.

IMHO, all voting districts should be simple rectangles, with NO 'jagged edges' except when allowing for state
& county boundaries and natural features such as rivers & mountain ranges that clearly separate regions.


Hopefully the SCOTUS just puts an end to this almost " under the radar " vote-rigging scheme.
I think we also need more Congressional districts, not fewer. Go back to 500K per population to give us a more representative democratic republic. Same with the Senate, as well. Round up to 1,000,000K per population for the first two Senators, then for every 5,000,000 per population additionally, you receive one more Senator. Easy peasy.
This will drive the Kleptocrats nuts. They'll have to spend at least $10-15 Billion more every election to give us the " best democracy money can buy ".
If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal. Well, it's not for a lack of effort. " If I had my way, If I had my way, If I had my way in this wicked world, I would tear this old building down ".
May your tribe prosper.:wink:


Good ! About time. Both parties do it . Here in Georgia we had one that resembled a snake. :confused:


I doubt SCOTUS is going to stop the Wisconsin gerrymander. The case was taken by the five conservatives for that reason. If they wanted to block the gerrymander, they would have let the lower court opinion stand.

What I think is going to happen, is a ruling that makes gerrymanders more likely. My fear is we are entering a new "post reconstruction" era, where conservative majorities exercise institutional power to reflect white nationalist thinking. I hope I'm wrong, but I really do believe the election of a black president screwed with a lot of white people's heads.


Here in Pennsylvania, the Democrats had the opportunity to gerrymander to lock in partisan advantage for a long time, but never did. (Not that they could be dirty in other ways such as machine politics and Philly mob connections etc.) It is only the relatively recent Republican majority of the past two censuses that has engaged in flagrant partisan gerrymandering. They even have a sophisticated boundary-drawing computer app called GOP REDMAP.

Recall that in the South up until 1968 when George Wallace quit the democrats, Democrats (Dixiecrats) occupied the place Republicans do now.


I'm not sure why 2018 is relevant. Both parties are happy to gerrymander the country to death in order to consolidate power. The Dems always claim they have to do it for "minority representation". The Repubs say "Works for me!"

I agree that districts shouldn't take politics into consideration but "law makers" make these laws and they are about as likely to give up that power as they are to simplify the behemoth tax code that benefits them so well personally.


Gerrymandering is an obvious problem when it hurts my party, but why are we obsessed with the Russian interference when we did this to ourselves with our arcane election system flaw. Clinton and other got 73,,648,823 votes, Trump got 62,979,636 votes A simple run-off would have elected the Clinton's


Not necessarily. Trump explicitly campaigned to the current rules.
He would have altered his strategy if the rules were different.

Clinton clearly ran the worst campaign ever, by definition. She literally had unlimited resources and support and still lost to Donald Trump, for gods sake!
Trump had to beat an overwhelming opposition and did.

Just because you wanted another outcome doesn't mean that changing that particular variable would have been successful. Regardless of his politics, he ran a vastly smarter campaign.

Question: How do you get Donald Trump as President?
Answer: Hillary Clinton.


Nice try, but no prize. The logic doesn't fit. Trump's deficit in the popular vote is 10.6 million. That is beyond overcoming in a simple shift of strategy and most of the Stein and Johnson spoiler vote would have simply gone to Clinton by default in a run off. Trump couldn't shift his anti globalism message far enough to overcome that deficit and Clinton was already poised to take the military complex vote. the rest of the messages were simply gibberish by both candidates. You are stuck with the electoral college, we need a total re do.


Because if the RePooplicans control redistricting in 2018 – and there's little chance they won't – they'll con- solidate their power so completely that the 2020 "election" will be pointless.  Even if progressives by some miracle are able to put forth some truly popular populists and get them past the DNC-rigged primaries, then RePooplican-controlled gerrymandering will provide the same result as in 2016 – a popular-vote win at the
top overturned by the electoral college, and continued far-right control of Congress (or at least the House) guaranteed by their voter-proof districts.


And forty years of Duopoly lies behind her.  I would guess that most Trump voters "knew" she was a liar, and desperately wanted to believe that he wasn't.

Ah-Yep.  All he needed was to attach the name 'Krooked Hillary' to her, and attach her to the widely hated Establishment.  Pretty easy, actually, but he WAS enough of a showman to pull it off.  And the MSM helped
too, giving his tweets a LOT of free airtime, but spending very little energy digging into his own Krooked past.

Really?  I thought that the difference was more like 3.2 million, not 10.6.  But what really nailed it for Trump was voter suppression in the upper midwest – a couple of hundred thousand minority voters dropped from the rolls in each of the three states that he won by only 15 or 20 thousand – just enough to give him the electoral col- lege majority.  IIRC, the same thing happened in Florida.

And it could happen again in 2018.   How are you going to fight the RePooplicans' voter-suppression and gerrymandering with Sessions as A.G. and a five-to-four right-wing Supreme Court??


That's a good point – and more than a little scary!

Not legitimate majorities, but electoral "majorities" brought about by voter suppression and gerrymandering – similar to what happened in South Africa in the 20th century that resulted in several years of apartheid.

It's conceivable that the corporate cacastocracy that controls our economy set up O'Bummer to win in 2008 on the assumption that this would trigger a right-wing backlash in 2012 that would give them outright control of the trappings of our "democracy" as well. The mediocrity of Romney - and his "47%" remark - postponed the back- lash until 2016, but then – thanks to an almost perfect storm of Trump's phony "outsider" campaign, a growing hatred of "The Establishment" as represented by 'Crooked Hillary', and the blatantly unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders and his progressive supporters by said Establishment – all hell broke loose . . .


Well, I'll just say I hope my fears are misplaced.


But that works both ways.

I don't just mean that Dems and Repubs both gerrymander whenever possible, but the they both explicitly agree to each others gerrymandering.

A district that guarantees a Democrat majority can actually support creation of a Republican gerrymandered district.

They might jostle for power sometimes, but the corrupt bastards on both sides are much happier setting up secure bases than having actual competition that might actually risk a loss.