Author Topic: Gerrymandering on trial  (Read 127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
Gerrymandering on trial
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:46:52 pm »
Possibly the most consequential court case in recent US history, Gill v. Whitford, had oral argument before the US Supreme Court today.

If lower court rulings are upheld, partisan gerrymandering--such as was done after the 2010 election, primarily by Republicans--could be declared unconstitutional.

Hopefully, Justice Kennedy will be convinced that lower courts have met the challenge he gave them in his concurrence in Vieth v. Jubelirer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqTV5aSDm4M

First part of an interview with David Daley, who has studied gerrymandering and its use for partisan purposes.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote
Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Offline Eiki-mun

  • der Löwe aus Mitternacht
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Gender: Male
  • On the fields of Breitenfeld.
    • Main Personal Blog
Re: Gerrymandering on trial
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2017, 08:43:53 pm »
Let's be realistic. It's not gonna happen. Kennedy's gonna vote with Thomas and Alito, and gerrymandering is gonna be legal forever.
There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
Re: Gerrymandering on trial
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2017, 08:57:07 pm »
Let's be realistic. It's not gonna happen. Kennedy's gonna vote with Thomas and Alito, and gerrymandering is gonna be legal forever.

In Vieth he only sort of voted with them. He concurred in the judgment but not in overturning Baker v. Carr, and specifically said that he'd consider claims that partisan gerrymandering has gone too far if someone can actually find a decent metric for it.

That, essentially, is what's now happened with Gill. People have worked since Vieth to come up with such a measure, and now they think they've got one that will satisfy Kennedy.

As I saw Vieth described: Four conservative justices said that gerrymandering is great! Four liberal justices said that gerrymandering sucks! And Kennedy threw up his hands and said, "I'm confused! Some smart person help me!"

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-supreme-court-hearings-1.4319631

Apparently, what might happen in the gerrymandering case is that Kennedy will say, "Well... I agree with the complainants... but they don't have standing."
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 12:41:41 am by dpareja »
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote
Be weird, cause normal is boring.