Home | About | Donate

Partisan Gerrymandering Back at the Supreme Court


#1

Partisan Gerrymandering Back at the Supreme Court

Annie Lo, Thomas Wolf

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in March for partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland. The Court’s announcement clears a path for the justices to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering by the end of June 2019.

How North Carolina and Maryland’s extreme partisan gerrymanders came to be


#2

The Robert’s Court has no respect for democracy. They gave politics to big money. Destroyed the Voting Right’s Act. Ignored the partisan gerrymanders that gave the House to the GOP for ten years. Both of Trump’s members are radicals as were Bush’s. It is a political court that does not deserve respect for what it has done to democracy.


#3

“If the justices uphold any of the trial courts’ decisions, it will be the first time that the Supreme Court will have struck down a map on partisan gerrymandering grounds.”

This is the important takeaway from this article; the Supreme Court has never ruled that gerrymandering, even partisan gerrymandering extreme or otherwise is unconstitutional, only racial gerrymandering.

I see no reason that the conservative money whores on the Supreme Court will rule for anything other than paving the way for continued legal and sanctioned extreme partisan gerrymandering.


#4

And why not? They have already sanctioned money as a cheating mechanism.


#5

No, they only struck down one part of it, requiring preclearance before certain jurisdictions can make any changes. The notion that a section of law applies to some but not all is unconstitutional. It was resorted to in Civil War victors manner simply because the South, at the time, was trying to subvert the intent of such laws by every method. It has been 50 years since then and politics in the south or elsewhere are nowhere like that.

The rest of the Voting Rights Act still stands. I think there is reason to revise the act. It should ask whether some district has abnormally low voter turnout, for example.

On the general topic, to insert judges into drawing political boundaries risks politicizing the role of judges even worse than it already is.

On Maryland specifically, many of the districts have very odd borders. Particularly the region between Washington DC and the northern Baltimore suburbs. Since those borders meander through strongly Democrat territory, one has to wonder why they meander, rather than creating compact Democrat districts.


#6

It was a preventative measure for those states that would try to inhibit the right to vote of racial minorities.

Clearly racism still exists today and politicians are trying to subvert their vote.

Your post really makes an argument that this section of the voting right act should have been extended to all states as opposed to being eliminated, for the worst offenders.


#7

You seem to view election rights the way Illinois views public pensions and Sen. Warren views Medicare: that the law can be made more liberal and generous, but not the other way around, totally ignoring fraud and abuse, and the hazards to our democratic institutions.

A question for you and every other reader: What do you need to see before you will be persuaded that racism is no longer a concern? (… no longer exists?)

For reference in making an answer, 13 other ethnic groups in America have a higher income than whites.