Law SCOTUS to take up gerrymandering cases in March.

[Diamond Jim]

The Supreme Court indicated Friday that it would be hearing two partisan gerrymandering cases in March: one from North Carolina and one from Maryland.

The North Carolina case stems from years of redistricting drama in the state. After North Carolina’s U.S. congressional map, drawn by its GOP statehouse, was struck down because it was an illegal racial gerrymander, Republican legislators explicitly said that they would redraw it with the aim of gerrymandering on a partisan basis.

“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said Georgia state Rep. David Lewis (R) said as legislators were passing the map in 2016. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

A three-judge panel in August said that such a partisan gerrymander was unconstitutional. The map gave Republicans 10 out of North Carolina’s 13 congressional seats in 2016, as GOP lawmakers predicted, despite Republicans winning the statewide vote of only 53 percent.

The Maryland case is a challenge to a congressional district drawn by Democratic lawmakers in the state. It was struck down in November by a three-judge panel, which ordered the state to redraw the map in time for the 2020 elections. The Supreme Court has intervened in this case before, and last year declined to rule on the merits while sending it back to the trial court for further review.

For years, voting rights advocates have hoped to get a Supreme Court decision that would draw the line on when partisan gerrymanders were so extreme that they violated the constitution. However, their strategy rested on former Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote who had hinted at his discomfort with partisan gerrymandering in the past. Kennedy declined to join the liberals in two big partisan gerrymandering cases last term, but the court was able to decide those on a narrow, technical basis that left open the bigger question of partisan gerrymandering on the merits.





I believe gerrymandering is a main factor in the toxicity of our current government but not sure this is good news. Lower courts already struck down these maps. For SCOTUS to take it up makes me believe they are looking to restore these practices.

 

[ChainFlow]

This is potentially horrible, but if they strike it down at least it won’t have to be settled ever again...

Anxiety-inducing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Seems to me like the lines should either be by county or a grouping of counties. Dividing counties into different districts doesn't make sense.

 

[panamaican]

Good to know. I hope they put some kind of limitation on this stuff. It's disenfranchising voters.

 

[Trotsky]

lol @ the Court that decided Bush v. Gore, one of the most blatantly partisan decisions in Supreme Court history, and then replaced the Court's three most moderate conservatives with three of the most extreme and partisan right-wing justices in Court history, offering up literally anything against gerrymandering or anything else that benefits swindling and power. Anything short of a Republican governor in a white hood canceling voter registrations in front of a big flashing "I'M DOING THIS ONLY BECAUSE I HATE N******" sign won't move the needle for these sociopathic hacks.

 

[Limbo Pete]

The Supreme Court indicated Friday that it would be hearing two partisan gerrymandering cases in March: one from North Carolina and one from Maryland.

The North Carolina case stems from years of redistricting drama in the state. After North Carolina’s U.S. congressional map, drawn by its GOP statehouse, was struck down because it was an illegal racial gerrymander, Republican legislators explicitly said that they would redraw it with the aim of gerrymandering on a partisan basis.

“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said Georgia state Rep. David Lewis (R) said as legislators were passing the map in 2016. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

A three-judge panel in August said that such a partisan gerrymander was unconstitutional. The map gave Republicans 10 out of North Carolina’s 13 congressional seats in 2016, as GOP lawmakers predicted, despite Republicans winning the statewide vote of only 53 percent.

The Maryland case is a challenge to a congressional district drawn by Democratic lawmakers in the state. It was struck down in November by a three-judge panel, which ordered the state to redraw the map in time for the 2020 elections. The Supreme Court has intervened in this case before, and last year declined to rule on the merits while sending it back to the trial court for further review.

For years, voting rights advocates have hoped to get a Supreme Court decision that would draw the line on when partisan gerrymanders were so extreme that they violated the constitution. However, their strategy rested on former Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote who had hinted at his discomfort with partisan gerrymandering in the past. Kennedy declined to join the liberals in two big partisan gerrymandering cases last term, but the court was able to decide those on a narrow, technical basis that left open the bigger question of partisan gerrymandering on the merits.





I believe gerrymandering is a main factor in the toxicity of our current government but not sure this is good news. Lower courts already struck down these maps. For SCOTUS to take it up makes me believe they are looking to restore these practices.

Yeah doesn't bode well
Imo gerrymandering is one of the most pervasive and toxic problems within our political system. It effects everything and essentially disenfranchises voters from their most fundamental right

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Well if the SCOTUS upholds gerrymandering Murkans know for certain democracy has been put to sleep.

 

[Higus]

“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said Georgia state Rep. David Lewis (R) said as legislators were passing the map in 2016. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

Did that sound better in his head or something?

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

If it weren't for gerrymandering, Republicans would never control congress.

 

[JamesRussler]

The Supreme Court indicated Friday that it would be hearing two partisan gerrymandering cases in March: one from North Carolina and one from Maryland.

The North Carolina case stems from years of redistricting drama in the state. After North Carolina’s U.S. congressional map, drawn by its GOP statehouse, was struck down because it was an illegal racial gerrymander, Republican legislators explicitly said that they would redraw it with the aim of gerrymandering on a partisan basis.

“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said Georgia state Rep. David Lewis (R) said as legislators were passing the map in 2016. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

A three-judge panel in August said that such a partisan gerrymander was unconstitutional. The map gave Republicans 10 out of North Carolina’s 13 congressional seats in 2016, as GOP lawmakers predicted, despite Republicans winning the statewide vote of only 53 percent.

The Maryland case is a challenge to a congressional district drawn by Democratic lawmakers in the state. It was struck down in November by a three-judge panel, which ordered the state to redraw the map in time for the 2020 elections. The Supreme Court has intervened in this case before, and last year declined to rule on the merits while sending it back to the trial court for further review.

For years, voting rights advocates have hoped to get a Supreme Court decision that would draw the line on when partisan gerrymanders were so extreme that they violated the constitution. However, their strategy rested on former Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote who had hinted at his discomfort with partisan gerrymandering in the past. Kennedy declined to join the liberals in two big partisan gerrymandering cases last term, but the court was able to decide those on a narrow, technical basis that left open the bigger question of partisan gerrymandering on the merits.





I believe gerrymandering is a main factor in the toxicity of our current government but not sure this is good news. Lower courts already struck down these maps. For SCOTUS to take it up makes me believe they are looking to restore these practices.

I don't think you're going to like what the Court will say about this. It's hard enough to prove the existence of illicit "gerrymandering" (as opposed to merely drawing a district boundary), but even if you could, what makes the Court more qualified to draw district boundaries than a state legislature? At least state legislators are elected; judges are appointed. And if gerrymandering is such a pernicious evil, how did the Democrats just take control of the House by flipping a number of traditionally Republican districts? How many seats do you really think the Left deserved to win? How would you draw the districts if you were in charge?

At the end of the day, the question of how districts should be drawn is a quintessential political question. Unless you have a state legislator on record saying something egregious, like "we drew this district to disenfranchise those pesky blacks," the Court is just going to instruct lower courts to abstain from such cases.

 

[Lead]

I don't know if this is going to work out well. I think Gerrymandering can only really be sorted out 2-3 ways:
1. In 2020, Dems are going to put counter money into state legislator races which will even out the process between the parties somewhat compared to the GOP dominance in 2010.
2. State Courts overrule the maps and draw their own lines like these cases and PA.
3. The legislator puts in place a group to draw the lines under specific rules that appear unbiased to a party and representative to the popular vote somewhat. There's formulas and methods already out there to do this.

 

[luckyshot]

l’m guessing that by some convoluted logic, Maryland’s map will be found unconstitutional but NC will be a-ok.

MAYBE John Roberts has found some sense of decency... maybe... but I wouldn’t hold my breath on it from the guy who gutted the Voting Rights Act.

 

[7437]

Sounds like Rep David Lewis is an overt enemy of democracy.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

“I think electing outright Fascists is better than electing corporatists,” said Georgia state Rep. David Lewis (R) said as legislators were passing the map in 2016. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is best for the oligarchy.”

Fixed.

 

[Fawlty]

My completely incompetent prediction is that SCOTUS will defer to the states. So states that strike down gerrymandered maps will hold up, and states that promote non-racial gerrymanders will hold up. I think the court will distance itself from controlling elections.

 

[Limbo Pete]

My completely incompetent prediction is that SCOTUS will defer to the states. So states that strike down gerrymandered maps will hold up, and states that promote non-racial gerrymanders will hold up. I think the court will distance itself from controlling elections.

I think that's the best we can hope for, honestly