So, Partisan Gerrymandering is apparently cool now...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

For clarification on my end, I did learn from this that there are rules surrounding the established practice of gerrymandering. I knew that going in it is legal, but wasn't familiar with development to provisions that cite that it's specifically illegal to gerrymander predicated on racial lines.

As far as this ruling is concerned, I don't see how this particular court couldn't have found this unconstitutional. The legislative drafts proposal, but the courts set their own precedence in determining if someone's rights are being violated at its own discretion. Their job isn't limited to defending state legislatures to compromise people's voting power to the letter of the constitution, and it's arguably antithetical to that. There's no basis for saying that it's unfair to do it corresponding to racial lines (protected classes) but fair at the same time to let it happen to anybody a chargeable state pleases.

[LittleRaven]

As far as this ruling is concerned, I don't see how this particular court couldn't have found this unconstitutional.

Which part did you take issue with?

Cause frankly, this lays it out pretty well.

Partisan gerrymandering was known in the Colonies prior to Independence, and the Framers were familiar with it at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. They addressed the election of Representatives to Congress in the Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, assigning to state legislatures the power to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for Members of Congress, while giving Congress the power to “make or alter” any such regulations. Congress has regularly exercised its Elections Clause power, including to address partisan gerrymandering. But the Framers did not set aside all electoral issues as questions that only Congress can resolve. In two areas—one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering—this Court has held that there is a role for the courts with respect to at least some issues that could arise from a State’s drawing of congressional districts. But the history of partisan gerrymandering is not irrelevant. Aware of electoral districting problems, the Framers chose a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress, with no suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play.

There is simply no basis in the Constitution for what you're suggesting, and you haven't pointed one out. Even Kagan struggles to find one. Yes, gerrymandering is bad, but the Court does not have a mandate to fix every bad thing. They are just as shackled as any other branch of the government - as they should be.

The legislative drafts proposal, but the courts set their own precedence in determining if someone's rights are being violated at its own discretion.

This is...absolutely wrong. That's not how the Supreme Court works AT ALL. The Court is not a super legislature - it has very precise rules about how a case must come before them, and the possible outcomes that can come of this. This is necessary, because the Court is the one branch of our government that is not democratic in the least. Nobody votes for these people, and we have no practical way of changing them once they're in, so we impose very, VERY strict rules about what they can and cannot do.

There's no basis for saying that it's unfair to do it corresponding to racial lines (protected classes) but fair at the same time to let it happen to anybody a chargeable state pleases.

There absolutely is, and it's the 15th Amendment.

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Doesn't say a damn thing about partisan affiliation.

[ProfessorDetective]

As far as this ruling is concerned, I don't see how this particular court couldn't have found this unconstitutional.

Which part did you take issue with?

Cause frankly, this lays it out pretty well.

Partisan gerrymandering was known in the Colonies prior to Independence, and the Framers were familiar with it at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. They addressed the election of Representatives to Congress in the Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, assigning to state legislatures the power to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for Members of Congress, while giving Congress the power to “make or alter” any such regulations. Congress has regularly exercised its Elections Clause power, including to address partisan gerrymandering. But the Framers did not set aside all electoral issues as questions that only Congress can resolve. In two areas—one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering—this Court has held that there is a role for the courts with respect to at least some issues that could arise from a State’s drawing of congressional districts. But the history of partisan gerrymandering is not irrelevant. Aware of electoral districting problems, the Framers chose a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress, with no suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play.

There is simply no basis in the Constitution for what you're suggesting, and you haven't pointed one out. Even Kagan struggles to find one. Yes, gerrymandering is bad, but the Court does not have a mandate to fix every bad thing. They are just as shackled as any other branch of the government - as they should be.

The legislative drafts proposal, but the courts set their own precedence in determining if someone's rights are being violated at its own discretion.

This is...absolutely wrong. That's not how the Supreme Court works AT ALL. The Court is not a super legislature - it has very precise rules about how a case must come before them, and the possible outcomes that can come of this. This is necessary, because the Court is the one branch of our government that is not democratic in the least. Nobody votes for these people, and we have no practical way of changing them once they're in, so we impose very, VERY strict rules about what they can and cannot do.

There's no basis for saying that it's unfair to do it corresponding to racial lines (protected classes) but fair at the same time to let it happen to anybody a chargeable state pleases.

There absolutely is, and it's the 15th Amendment.

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Doesn't say a damn thing about partisan affiliation.

This feels like a glorified loophole. And it NEEDS to be sealed.

[LittleRaven]

This feels like a glorified loophole. And it NEEDS to be sealed.

I agree with you. But details matter. So let's look at those. The Constitution doesn't really give us a lot in this department.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

That's pretty much all we have to go on here. (barring the Amendments, of course)

But then we have that pesky 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So the Constitution doesn't lay out a framework for laying out districts, meaning it's up to the States to do whatever they want, provided they don't run afoul of a couple of very specific tripwires noted by the Court. So the Court can't save us here.

But....there IS a way to fix it! The Constitution grants this power to the States, so the States can fix it. 5 of them already have. More will hopefully follow. Or failing that, pass a Constitutional Amendment that gives the Court the power you want them to have. But they don't have that power right now.

[TGLS]

But then we have that pesky 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So the Constitution doesn't lay out a framework for laying out districts, meaning it's up to the States to do whatever they want, provided they don't run afoul of a couple of very specific tripwires noted by the Court. So the Court can't save us here.

Well, given that Title 2 Chapter 1 Section 2c is still around, I have to doubt that the states can do completely as they please while the federal government is powerless. On the other hand, it's not like congress has the wherewithal to pass legislation stopping gerrymandering to begin with.

[LittleRaven]

Well, given that Title 2 Chapter 1 Section 2c is still around, I have to doubt that the states can do completely as they please while the federal government is powerless.

But Title 2 Chapter 1 Section 2c merely lays out how many representatives they can send. It doesn't say anything about how to select them.

I mean, if you're strictly going for pedantry, then that's fine, I accept the foul, but I want to make sure I'm not missing a more salient point.

On the other hand, it's not like congress has the wherewithal to pass legislation stopping gerrymandering to begin with.

I'm not even sure Congress CAN pass that legislation - I don't think the Constitution gives the Feds that power. That's why I recommended the Amendment route. That one is pretty bulletproof.

[TGLS]

But Title 2 Chapter 1 Section 2c merely lays out how many representatives they can send. It doesn't say anything about how to select them.

I mean, if you're strictly going for pedantry, then that's fine, I accept the foul, but I want to make sure I'm not missing a more salient point.

Well, it also says that they can't have at-large districts, unless there's only one district for the state. My alternative is to do the exact opposite, and force states to only have at-large districts. Of course, the states would be left up to how they decide how these districts would be elected, which could very well be worse.

I'm not even sure Congress CAN pass that legislation - I don't think the Constitution gives the Feds that power. That's why I recommended the Amendment route. That one is pretty bulletproof.

Well, on the other hand, the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (FAIR Act) has been periodically proposed and went nowhere.