• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why can't SCOTUS end partisan gerrymandering?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Supreme Court of the United States will do nothing about partisan gerrymandering allowing parties to use gerrymandering to rule my minority. I would seem that the court says it can not make rules and yet, many state courts do just that. In New York the state court just put a district map into effect when it found the legislature had gerrymandered the district maps that they had tried to put in place. In Florida the state court just rejected the GOP district plan. If such huge states can have their courts rule on the partisan gerrymandering, then why not SCOTUS
 
independentusa said:
The Supreme Court of the United States will do nothing about partisan gerrymandering allowing parties to use gerrymandering to rule my minority. I would seem that the court says it can not make rules and yet, many state courts do just that. In New York the state court just put a district map into effect when it found the legislature had gerrymandered the district maps that they had tried to put in place. In Florida the state court just rejected the GOP district plan. If such huge states can have their courts rule on the partisan gerrymandering, then why not SCOTUS
Click to expand...
You don't understand how our justice system works, do you? The Supreme Court cannot rule on an issue unless the issue is brought before them.
 
noonereal said:
Districts should be set by algorithms. After all, it is 2022.
Click to expand...
And who picks who designs those algorithms and who picks those algorithms that are correct?
 
noonereal said:
Districts should be set by algorithms. After all, it is 2022.
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm for using a computer program to draw districts using population density data.
 
Mycroft said:
You don't understand how our justice system works, do you? The Supreme Court cannot rule on an issue unless the issue is brought before them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you do not understand, the issue has already been brought before them In Rucho Vs Commen cause
 
Davin said:
And who picks who designs those algorithms and who picks those algorithms that are correct?
Click to expand...
It has already been done. I helped our county planner use a computer program to outline districts for county supervisors in 1990. I suspect programs have gotten better since then. BY the way, no one could complain as the computer drew up the lines.
 
independentusa said:
Sorry, you do not understand, the issue has already been brought before them In Rucho Vs Commen cause
Click to expand...

Yep, when there is no question of complying with a law then the courts have no say in the matter.
 
independentusa said:
The Supreme Court of the United States will do nothing about partisan gerrymandering allowing parties to use gerrymandering to rule my minority. I would seem that the court says it can not make rules and yet, many state courts do just that. In New York the state court just put a district map into effect when it found the legislature had gerrymandered the district maps that they had tried to put in place. In Florida the state court just rejected the GOP district plan. If such huge states can have their courts rule on the partisan gerrymandering, then why not SCOTUS
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. Drawing district boundaries is a state power. All the constitution requires is how many representatives, then Federal law requires that the districts have nearly identical population.

If I'm not mistaken, States could even use some other method besides single-member districts. The state courts or SCOTUS would only over-rule that if the state strayed too far from one-person-one-vote. Or if they tried to put forward more or fewer Representatives than their apportioned share.

In 2013 SCOTUS ripped important parts out of the Voting Rights Act, which had ensured Federal veto on state maps. It wasn't hard for them to do since the Democrats naively limited the act only to a list of named states. Discriminating between states that way meant the legislation was always unsound.
 
If Feds are constitutionally limited from setting boundaries, and State governments can't be trusted to do it fairly, that leaves only The People fit to draw boundaries.

Now I'm not saying independent commissions, because I wouldn't trust them to remain independent amidst the toxic sludge of partisanship.

Rather I'd like everyone who votes to also fill out some kind of preference ballot ("would you prefer to be in a neighbouring district, and if so which one?") and feed all those results into an algorithm providing maximum satisfaction to voters within the limits of district shape and total population.

It might backfire of course. Voters ignorantly seeking more decisive wins for a neighbouring candidate, might gerrymander themselves! But after a few cycles and advised by their preferred party, I expect they would learn not to do that.
 
independentusa said:
Sorry, you do not understand, the issue has already been brought before them In Rucho Vs Commen cause
Click to expand...
Thank you. I didn't know that. Perhaps you could have mentioned that case in your OP.

In any case, the court is very clear about their decision: Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause

Instead of wishing for an activist Supreme Court making rulings that are beyond the scope of their existence, you should focus your desires on the various states...or Congress.
 
Mycroft said:
Thank you. I didn't know that. Perhaps you could have mentioned that case in your OP.

In any case, the court is very clear about their decision: Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause

Instead of wishing for an activist Supreme Court making rulings that are beyond the scope of their existence, you should focus your desires on the various states...or Congress.
Click to expand...

Why not the People? Expecting the States OR the Feds to do it fairly is like expecting the fox to guard the henhouse. They as individuals stand to gain by cheating.
 
Spirit of The Millennium said:
Why not the People? Expecting the States OR the Feds to do it fairly is like expecting the fox to guard the henhouse. They as individuals stand to gain by cheating.
Click to expand...
Well, sure...it has to start with "the People", but the change will happen at the State or federal legislative levels. Not by way of the courts.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, sure...it has to start with "the People", but the change will happen at the State or federal legislative levels. Not by way of the courts.
Click to expand...

That's always the best. At least because there are still the courts as a safeguard.
 
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has, in a case decision, essentially stated that political gerrymandering essentially falls outside its jurisdiction. Cf. Rucho vs. Common Cause, 2019. It has also come out against extreme political gerrymandering, but provided no standard to describe 'extreme'.

That leaves it up to the states to deal with it. Some states, such as New York, have constitutional barriers. Others, not.

An algorithm to consider for drawing congressional district boundaries would be one which, through reiteration, reduces the total length of the borders between districts. [Ed.: Or perhaps of the districts in toto, including borders with other states or a coast.]

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
 
Last edited:
independentusa said:
The Supreme Court of the United States will do nothing about partisan gerrymandering allowing parties to use gerrymandering to rule my minority. I would seem that the court says it can not make rules and yet, many state courts do just that. In New York the state court just put a district map into effect when it found the legislature had gerrymandered the district maps that they had tried to put in place. In Florida the state court just rejected the GOP district plan. If such huge states can have their courts rule on the partisan gerrymandering, then why not SCOTUS
Click to expand...
It's impossible to end gerrymandering. By its nature, drawing political boundaries is a political process. States can and have drawn up standards and appointed independent agencies to draw the maps but nothing requires it.

Further, it is a state-level legislative process. That means that the state courts have jurisdiction and even that is limited.
 
independentusa said:
The Supreme Court of the United States will do nothing about partisan gerrymandering allowing parties to use gerrymandering to rule my minority. I would seem that the court says it can not make rules and yet, many state courts do just that. In New York the state court just put a district map into effect when it found the legislature had gerrymandered the district maps that they had tried to put in place. In Florida the state court just rejected the GOP district plan. If such huge states can have their courts rule on the partisan gerrymandering, then why not SCOTUS
Click to expand...
Because they know with the current political layout of the states, gerrymandering benefits conservatives more than liberals. If the court's makeup was different, it would act differently. We also need to be rid of Citizens United. The most corrupt ruling for our electoral system ever.
 
NatMorton said:
Which party gets to hire the software engineers who design and implement the algorithms?
Click to expand...
Make it a bipartisan commission. Have any decisions stick for a ten year period. Have at least four members, all with veto authority.

If they can’t come to a conclusion, then have the law enforce a sequester and being away from their families until they do.
 
Isn't the real question why CHRISTIAN politicans lie, cheat and steal?
 
NatMorton said:
What makes you think software engineers are any less biased than anyone else, our experience with Twitter's algorithms?
Click to expand...

Hi, NatMorton.

People, all of us, carry a lot of assumptions and biases along with us. However, given the algorithm proposed in post #18 above, if both of our major parties agreed to it, the code could be checked by experts from each party to uncover hidden tweaks. Open code is, well, open code.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom