Supreme Court allows severe partisan gerrymandering to continue

[OpportunityCost]

WTF!

I said that ROBERT's majority opinion mentions such discussions about fair representation. it was not Kagan's opinion and he was not referring to Kagan's opinion.

14 amendment with its Equal Protection Clause has been used for ALL citizens and not just minority voters

Reynolds v. Sims :: 377 U.S. 533 (1964) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Held:

1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state or federal election. Pp. 377 U. S. 554-555.

2. Under the Equal Protection Clause, a claim of debasement of the right to vote through malapportionment presents a justiciable controversy, and the Equal Protection Clause provides manageable standards for lower courts to determine the constitutionality of a state legislative apportionment scheme. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, followed. Pp. 377 U. S. 556-557.

3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside. Pp. 377 U. S. 56l-568.

I guess you aren't familiar with Baker v Carr, it was about ignoring the law drafted by the legislation to adhere to regarding apportionment and ignoring population shifts and changes. It impacted minorities and was judged applicable for 14th amendment protections.

Regarding Reynolds v Sims, the districts are roughly equal in size and apportionment, that has not a thing to do with the argument being brought and argued. They are arguing that the way in which the lines were drawn disadvantage Democrats as a group. Democrats are not a protected group.

"Fair" is in size and apportionment and racial representation, not equity between political parties.

 

[pamak]

I guess you aren't familiar with Baker v Carr, it was about ignoring the law drafted by the legislation to adhere to regarding apportionment and ignoring population shifts and changes. It impacted minorities and was judged applicable for 14th amendment protections.

Again, I prefer to see the actual decision which links the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) to ALL citizens

3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside. Pp. 377 U. S. 56l-568.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Again, I prefer to see the actual decision which links the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) to ALL citizens

3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside. Pp. 377 U. S. 56l-568.

Once again, without context it means ****. In the current argument it means **** because the population and apportionments are roughly equal. You are arguing for intervention on the basis of equality of an unprotected group when the districts are equal, racially in line with the overall state population. The sole inequality is that it is not advantageous to the Democrat party.

 

[pamak]

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

"Fair" is in size and apportionment and racial representation, not equity between political parties.

Nobody says anything about equity between political parties. It is equity of citizens' vote and not letting targeted dilution !

Held:

1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state or federal election. Pp. 377 U. S. 554-555.

 

[pamak]

Once again, without context it means ****. In the current argument it means **** because the population and apportionments are roughly equal. You are arguing for intervention on the basis of equality of an unprotected group when the districts are equal, racially in line with the overall state population. The sole inequality is that it is not advantageous to the Democrat party.

The decision in blue applies REGARDLESS of the racial composition of a state If a state is 100% white, the requirement for roughly equal population in districts still holds and it is still based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside. Pp. 377 U. S. 56l-568.

My point was to counter your attempt to link the decision only to cases when minorities are involved (see your quote again below).

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost
...It impacted minorities and was judged applicable for 14th amendment protections.

The decision applies to ALL citizens, and it is obvious that one can use the same Equal Protection Clause to protect citizens from targeted dilution of their vote which according to the same decision creates a denial of suffrage

1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state or federal election. Pp. 377 U. S. 554-555.

 

[NWRatCon]

Political parties are not voters. They don't have federal protections.

Then you disagree with the Supreme Court decision?

 

[NWRatCon]

Political parties are not constitutionally protected. Individual voters are and federal protections are limited by outlined groups in racial protections.

It is entirely possible to disadvantage political parties without disadvantaging minorities. The federal interest in gerrymandering is rooted in racial equality. Political equality isn't something the court should decide.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I can state with some authority that you don't understand the Amendment or the decision at all. ("federal protections are limited by outlined groups in racial protections.") While it is true that the 14th Amendment was created to respond to suppression of minorities, its language is much broader than that. You have it in your head that the suit was about party, it is not - it is about divestment of the privilege of voting. Nor is the 14th Amendment limited to racial disparity (although that is certainly the basis for the gerrymander in this case). In this case "party" is just successfully being used as a "proxy" for race, as the history of gerrymandering in North Carolina demonstrates.

We pointed to the affidavit of an expert witness for defendants, Dr. David W. Peterson. Dr. Peterson offered to show that, because North Carolina's African-American voters are overwhelmingly Democratic voters, one cannot easily distinguish a legislative effort to create a majority-AfricanAmerican district from a legislative effort to create a safely Democratic district.

(Emphasis mine), Easley v. Cromartie (2001).

Caution is especially appropriate in this case, where the State has articulated a legitimate political explanation for its districting decision, and the voting population is one in which race and political affiliation are highly correlated.

Easely was the last of a series of four decisions in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I can't say that I agree with the reasoning in those decisions, but they did outline the pattern of behavior and the correlation of party and race in the development of the gerrymander. What the Court in this decision has done is eliminate the need for consideration of racial criteria at all if the State can make a facial claim of political motivation. That analysis is nonsensical, and undermines over 100 years of jurisprudence on the issue.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yeah, it is possible. We will see that play out starting in 2021.

Hopefully at least ONE of "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" or "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" will end up producing a candidate that is "suitable" (being "qualified" is not actually a "necessary condition") for the office of President of the United States of America.

Of course it would be better if at least ONE of "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" or "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" ended up producing a candidate that is BOTH "suitable" and "qualified" (and not merely "meets the minimum constitutional standards for eligibility).

Mind you, the ideal would be if aBOTH of "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" or "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" ended up producing candidates that were BOTH "suitable" and "qualified" AND who actually had actual plans (with actual details and not merely "sound bites") which they could actually explain and which would actually deal with the actual problems - but that's a bit like THIS, isn't it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The supreme court determined that the district lines were not "illegal" and if the people of the state believe it is devious, underhanded, unethical or immoral, they should probably pass a law making it illegal

Indeed they should.

And if the majority of the people in the state have a preference for elections in which any devious, illegal, underhanded, unethical, immoral, methods that work are perfectly acceptable then they will get elections in which any devious, illegal, underhanded, unethical, immoral, methods that work are perfectly acceptable.

To paraphrase one of my friend's grandfathers:

I don't object to them -making it- legalizing them. And I don't object to them -selling it- running them. I object to them calling -it bread- them democratic elections.
​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No. The issues and Constitutional principles are unchanged. Better performance is available to both sides.

However, when they are "in control of the system", NEITHER side wants "better performance" and, when they are NOT "in control of the system", BOTH parties demand "better performance".

 

[Jack Hays]

However, when they are "in control of the system", NEITHER side wants "better performance" and, when they are NOT "in control of the system", BOTH parties demand "better performance".

No. "Better performance" refers to professional political work. Always available to both sides.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Stop voting for the "devious, underhanded, unethical and immoral"

That doesn't really work all that well when the "devious, underhanded, unethical, and immoral" already have the majority because the supporters of the party which is being devious, underhanded, unethical, and immoral want to enjoy the benefits that accrue from a system that is run by the devious, underhanded, unethical, and immoral for the benefit of those who want the devious, underhanded, unethical, and immoral party to be in power - does it?

PS - Please note that the above does NOT include either the word "Democrats" or the word "Republicans".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Fun fact - Soccer was called soccer in most of Europe for quite a while and the term migrated here based on that. Later some leagues changed some rules and started calling it football to differentiate. The english stated to dislike the term in the 1980's.

I thought that you might be interested in

Although football-type games have been around for centuries, the sport we know today is often said to have begun in 1863, when England’s newly formed Football Association wrote down a set of rules. At the time, it was the most widely played game of its kind in the country, but it wasn’t the only one. Rugby football, named after an English boarding school, was a variation that allowed players to carry and run with the ball to advance it toward the goal. The game played under the Football Association’s rules thus became known as association football.

Inevitably, the names would be shortened. Linguistically creative students at the University of Oxford in the 1880s distinguished between the sports of “rugger” (rugby football) and “assoccer” (association football). The latter term was further shortened to “soccer” (sometimes spelled “socker”), and the name quickly spread beyond the campus. However, “soccer” never became much more than a nickname in Great Britain. By the 20th century, rugby football was more commonly called rugby, while association football had earned the right to be known as just plain football.
[SOURCE]
​

From "the 1880s" to the 20[sup]th[/sup] Century (which started on 01 JAN 1901) is between 11 and 21 years (call it 15 years 6 months) and that hardly qualifies as "quite a while" - does it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How is not eroding democracy when the courts overturn a constitutionally passed law because they think they can doi a better job on the issue?

So, to take a VERY extreme and HIGHLY improbable case, let's suppose that 2/3[SUP]rds[/SUP] + 1 of the Senators and 2/3[SUP]rds[/SUP] + 1 of the Representatives vote in favour of a constitutional amendment to the 13[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment so that instead of reading

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
​

it would read

"[1] Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted or when the person enslaved or in involuntary servitude is a 'Boojum', shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[2] The President of the United States of America has the sole and unfettered authority and jurisdiction to define, by regulation, the term 'Boojum' and no court shall have the jurisdiction to interfere or overturn or modify or otherwise interpose its opinion in preference to the definition of 'Boojum' set by the President of the United States of America."
​

1. Would the courts have jurisdiction to preemptively strike down that amendment BEFORE it was submitted to the several states for ratification?
2. Would the courts have jurisdiction to preemptively strike down that amendment AFTER it was submitted to the several states for ratification but BEFORE it has been ratified by 3/4[SUP]ers[/SUP] of the several states?
3. Would the courts have jurisdiction to strike down that amendment AFTER had been ratified by 3/4[SUP]ers[/SUP] of the several states?
4. On what grounds would the courts strike down ANY amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America IF that amendment were properly (in accordance with the specific terms of the Constitution of the United States of America) proposed, properly (in accordance with the specific terms of the Constitution of the United States of America)voted upon, properly (in accordance with the specific terms of the Constitution of the United States of America)approved, and properly (in accordance with the specific terms of the Constitution of the United States of America)ratified?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Thanks for the clarification. Now I can state with some authority that you don't understand the Amendment or the decision at all. ("federal protections are limited by outlined groups in racial protections.") While it is true that the 14th Amendment was created to respond to suppression of minorities, its language is much broader than that. You have it in your head that the suit was about party, it is not - it is about divestment of the privilege of voting. Nor is the 14th Amendment limited to racial disparity (although that is certainly the basis for the gerrymander in this case). In this case "party" is just successfully being used as a "proxy" for race, as the history of gerrymandering in North Carolina demonstrates.
(Emphasis mine), Easley v. Cromartie (2001).

Easely was the last of a series of four decisions in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I can't say that I agree with the reasoning in those decisions, but they did outline the pattern of behavior and the correlation of party and race in the development of the gerrymander. What the Court in this decision has done is eliminate the need for consideration of racial criteria at all if the State can make a facial claim of political motivation. That analysis is nonsensical, and undermines over 100 years of jurisprudence on the issue.

Why do you think they are not acting in this instance? My thoughts are they know they stepped outside the bounds of what they should be deciding and acting as an interest arm of the parties involved which the court shouldn't be.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Then you disagree with the Supreme Court decision?

I'm not quoting the dissent in this instance and I believe its laying the groundwork for a reversal of acting as a go between for the parties when they should only represent voters in regards to equally formed districts with roughly equal apportionment per the latest census.

Political parties have become incredibly entrenched and are not making moves to bring voters from one side or the other. That drives gerrymandering. Broad based appeal kills gerrymandering as an advantage.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm not quoting the dissent in this instance and I believe its laying the groundwork for a reversal of acting as a go between for the parties when they should only represent voters in regards to equally formed districts with roughly equal apportionment per the latest census.

Political parties have become incredibly entrenched and are not making moves to bring voters from one side or the other. That drives gerrymandering. Broad based appeal kills gerrymandering as an advantage.

I don't disagree with the last statement, but we can't get broadbased appeal while partisan gerrymandering controls the nomination process. Those entrenched elements are killing compromise on both sides. It has been apparent for - Well, ever- that primaries are for the base, and general elections for the middle, but with extreme gerrymandering that middle has no chance. The primary will determine the winner 90+% of the time. Now, some is just geography: Rural States have rural voters, and city districts have urban voters - their interests and politics are generally predictable. But, with careful manipulation, redistricters can eliminate all the guesswork - and voter input.

Your confidence in the majority is misplaced. This was a purely partisan and ideological outcome (like Citizens United and Bush v. Gore), and both predictable and depressing. If, as you assert, you think voter, not party, interests should prevail, you should be steaming mad. This was an absolute party victory.

 

[NWRatCon]

I've stated before that party affiliation should never be a valid basis for a redistricting decision, indeed, should be a prohibited criterion. Do you agree or disagree with that stance? Where I think the majority goes irretrievably wrong is equating "party" with "political question". That is a bastardization of the concept of "political question", which is about the "political branches", not partisanship.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't disagree with the last statement, but we can't get broadbased appeal while partisan gerrymandering controls the nomination process. Those entrenched elements are killing compromise on both sides. It has been apparent for - Well, ever- that primaries are for the base, and general elections for the middle, but with extreme gerrymandering that middle has no chance. The primary will determine the winner 90+% of the time. Now, some is just geography: Rural States have rural voters, and city districts have urban voters - their interests and politics are generally predictable. But, with careful manipulation, redistricters can eliminate all the guesswork - and voter input.

Your confidence in the majority is misplaced. This was a purely partisan and ideological outcome (like Citizens United and Bush v. Gore), and both predictable and depressing. If, as you assert, you think voter, not party, interests should prevail, you should be steaming mad. This was an absolute party victory.

Its been happening since the first census. Making gerrymandering useless as a strategy is the only way to overcome it long term.

 

[Kreton]

I thought that you might be interested in

Although football-type games have been around for centuries, the sport we know today is often said to have begun in 1863, when England’s newly formed Football Association wrote down a set of rules. At the time, it was the most widely played game of its kind in the country, but it wasn’t the only one. Rugby football, named after an English boarding school, was a variation that allowed players to carry and run with the ball to advance it toward the goal. The game played under the Football Association’s rules thus became known as association football.

Inevitably, the names would be shortened. Linguistically creative students at the University of Oxford in the 1880s distinguished between the sports of “rugger” (rugby football) and “assoccer” (association football). The latter term was further shortened to “soccer” (sometimes spelled “socker”), and the name quickly spread beyond the campus. However, “soccer” never became much more than a nickname in Great Britain. By the 20th century, rugby football was more commonly called rugby, while association football had earned the right to be known as just plain football.
[SOURCE]
​

From "the 1880s" to the 20[sup]th[/sup] Century (which started on 01 JAN 1901) is between 11 and 21 years (call it 15 years 6 months) and that hardly qualifies as "quite a while" - does it?

When you drop off 80 years conveniently perhaps.

Gradually, the term “soccer” gained popularity in the U.S. to distinguish the sport from American football. By the 1980s, the Brits began to part with the term, apparently, because it had become too “American.”

“Since 1980 the usage of the word ‘soccer’ has declined in British publications, and where it is used, it usually refers to an American context. This decline seems to be a reaction against the increased usage in the US which seems to be associated with the highpoint of the [North American Soccer League] around 1980.”

 

[NWRatCon]

Its been happening since the first census. Making gerrymandering useless as a strategy is the only way to overcome it long term.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. In this instance, I think the pressure is building behind the dam. When the dissatisfaction and frustration of the electorate overwhelms the blockage, I'm not sure the Republican party will recover. Unfortunately, I don't I'll be alive to see it.

 

[pamak]

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. In this instance, I think the pressure is building behind the dam. When the dissatisfaction and frustration of the electorate overwhelms the blockage, I'm not sure the Republican party will recover. Unfortunately, I don't I'll be alive to see it.

One cannot discount the possibility that over time the republic will lose legitimacy with such tactics and some form of change will come. Did anybody expect the Soviet Union to collapse during the 20t century? I certainly cannot exclude a possibility of having a US split in a blue and a red union at some point during this century if things continue along this path.

At some point, when the President is not elected by popular vote and when the Senate by design is not a democratic institution and when the House elections undermine democracy, one day urban Americans may ask themselves "why are we letting this dictatorship rule our lives?"

 

[Jack Hays]

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. In this instance, I think the pressure is building behind the dam. When the dissatisfaction and frustration of the electorate overwhelms the blockage, I'm not sure the Republican party will recover. Unfortunately, I don't I'll be alive to see it.

There's no pressure.

 

[Jack Hays]

I certainly cannot exclude a possibility of having a US split in a blue and a red union at some point during this century if things continue along this path.

It's been tried. Didn't work.

 

[pamak]

It's been tried. Didn't work.

History shows that all republics stand until a gradual erosion of their legitimacy bring their fall.