Law [Partisan Gerrymandering News] Florida appeals court reverses ruling on DeSantis’s congressional maps

[ElKarlo]

This is why I laughed at all the partisan drones earlier in this thread who think gerrymandering is a Republican or Democrat phenomenon.

Unless the task of redistricting is put in the hand of an independent commission not beholden to any political party, whatever party in power WILL try to take advantage of it in their state.

Yeah, both sides do it, and both sides are guilty. I don't like it from a perspective of being an honest person. It is going to happen, but it should be at the min level. Not the crazy level it has gotten to in many states

 

[Arkain2K]

Ohio's map is the next to go:

Federal Court Throws Out Ohio's Congressional Map
May 3, 2019

David Niven, a professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati holds a map demonstrating a gerrymandered Ohio district.

A federal court has ruled that Ohio's congressional map is an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander" and must be redrawn by the 2020 election.

In their ruling Friday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio argue that the map was intentionally drawn "to disadvantage Democratic voters and entrench Republican representatives in power." The court argues the map violates voters' constitutional right to choose their representatives and exceeds the state's powers under Article I of the Constitution.

"Accordingly, we declare Ohio's 2012 map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, enjoin its use in the 2020 election, and order the enactment of a constitutionally viable replacement," the judges wrote in their decision.

The decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently deliberating challenges to congressional maps from Maryland and North Carolina.

A ballot issue overwhelmingly passed in May 2018 to place new requirements on Ohio's map-drawing process, but the new map wouldn't be created until after the 2020 Census. No congressional election would be affected until 2022.

Under the amendment, a congressional map that lasts 10 years must win 50 percent support from the state's minority party. If it fails to do so, the map would be drawn instead by a bipartisan commission. If that map doesn't get enough support, a 10-year map could then pass with just one-third of the minority party's support, or a four-year map could be passed without minority support but with stricter rules.

The ruling against Ohio comes just over one week after a federal court in Michigan struck down that map as unconstitutional.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/720047669/federal-court-throws-out-ohios-congressional-map

 

[HockeyBjj]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...democratic-partisan-election-maps/1290693001/

WASHINGTON – A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts may not intervene to block even the most partisan election maps drawn by state lawmakers, a decision that allows such gerrymandering to continue unabated.

The 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court's other conservatives said partisan election mapsdrawn by North Carolina Republicans and Maryland Democrats are constitutional despite their one-sided nature.

It was a dramatic withdrawal by the nation's highest court from the political battles that have consumed states for decades, and it was loudly denounced by the court's liberal justices.

"We have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority," Roberts said.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan decried the ruling on behalf of the court's four liberals. "Of all the times to abandon the court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one," she said. "The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government."

The ruling addresses the way election districts are redrawn once every decade in most states – a system dominated by political self-interest that has grown more intense every time the Supreme Court declined to tame it.

The high court has never before declared unconstitutional an election map drawn for blatant partisan advantage. Justices have reasoned that elected officials are expected to joust for power in that fashion, while courts should be reluctant to intercede.

Challengers were betting that this year, with these maps, the court might see things differently. In relatively "purple" North Carolina, where President Barack Obama won in 2008 but lost in 2012, Republicans drew themselves a 10-3 advantage in Congress. In more liberal Maryland, Democrats gave their party a disproportionate, 7-1 majority.

_________________

This is not at all a good ruling, and is concerning. Whatever group is in power, is now fully able to retain that power practically indefinitely

 

[BarryDillon]

Disgusting.

 

[BarryDillon]

@Quipling
@Trotsky

 

[sweetviolenturg]

Mindboggling.

 

[Limbo Pete]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...democratic-partisan-election-maps/1290693001/

WASHINGTON – A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts may not intervene to block even the most partisan election maps drawn by state lawmakers, a decision that allows such gerrymandering to continue unabated.

The 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court's other conservatives said partisan election mapsdrawn by North Carolina Republicans and Maryland Democrats are constitutional despite their one-sided nature.

It was a dramatic withdrawal by the nation's highest court from the political battles that have consumed states for decades, and it was loudly denounced by the court's liberal justices.

"We have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority," Roberts said.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan decried the ruling on behalf of the court's four liberals. "Of all the times to abandon the court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one," she said. "The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government."

The ruling addresses the way election districts are redrawn once every decade in most states – a system dominated by political self-interest that has grown more intense every time the Supreme Court declined to tame it.

The high court has never before declared unconstitutional an election map drawn for blatant partisan advantage. Justices have reasoned that elected officials are expected to joust for power in that fashion, while courts should be reluctant to intercede.

Challengers were betting that this year, with these maps, the court might see things differently. In relatively "purple" North Carolina, where President Barack Obama won in 2008 but lost in 2012, Republicans drew themselves a 10-3 advantage in Congress. In more liberal Maryland, Democrats gave their party a disproportionate, 7-1 majority.

_________________

This is not at all a good ruling, and is concerning. Whatever group is in power, is now fully able to retain that power practically indefinitely

It's the culmination of an intense, complicated, and honestly brilliant strategy that's been paying high dividends for over a decade now, and will continue to do so. We're looking at permanent, engineered political gamesmanship on a level literally never achieved before in this county. I hope Thomas Hofeller is roasting in the fiery depths of hell.

 

[Trotsky]

@Quipling
@Trotsky

There was never a reality in which the conservative majority did anything here. And this was undoubtedly in the calculus of McConnell and the Republicans' decision to abdicate their constitutional responsibility to vet Obama's nominee: to preserve their racially discriminatory minority rule.

 

[andnowweknow]

Census decision was coup'd by Justice Roberts.

This gerrymandering decision is transparently political for a shrinking Republican party.

 

[HockeyBjj]

In related news. Supreme Court made another decision I disagree with

Denied the citizen question on the 2020 census

Two poor decisions, each going in favor of different parties

 

[Trotsky]

For reference:

Georgia:
Democrats - 40% of vote, 29% of seats
Republicans - 60% of vote, 71% of seats

South Carolina:
Democrats - 40% of votes, 14% of seats
Republicans - 60% of votes, 86% of seats

Indiana:
Democrats - 42% of vote, 22% of seats
Republicans - 58% of vote, 78% of seats

Florida:
Democrats: 46% of vote, 35% of seats
Republicans: 54% of vote, 65% of seats

Alabama:
Democrats - 34% of vote, 14% of seats
Republicans - 66% of vote, 86% of seats

Kentucky:
Democrats - 29% of vote, 17% of seats
Republicans - 71% of vote, 83% of seats

Maryland:
Democrats - 63% of vote, 83% of seats
Republicans - 37% of vote, 17% of seats

Ohio:
Democrats - 42% of vote, 25% of seats
Republicans - 58% of vote, 75% of seats

North Carolina:
Democrats - 47% of votes, 23% of seats
Republicans - 53% of votes, 77% of seats

Pennsylvania:
Democrats - 46% of votes, 28% of seats
Republicans - 54% of votes, 72% of seats

Missouri:
Democrats - 39% of votes, 25% of seats
Republicans - 61% of votes, 75% of seats
​

Then, basically all rural Western states have all Republican seats and no Democratic seats with the actual vote distribution being about 70/30.

​

Also, New Hampshire and Nevada aren't really a matter of gerrymandering, but rather about too few a number of seats to be possibly divvied up according to actual vote distribution. Maryland, Illinois, and Connecticut are really the only grossly gerrymandered states in Democrats' favor.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Census decision was coup'd by Justice Roberts.

This gerrymandering decision is transparently political for a shrinking Republican party.

I always reassure leftists on this forum that we don't have an actually conservative Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts can be counted on to defect and join the liberal-leaning justices whenever a case has grabbed a sufficient amount of headlines.

We finally have the Supreme Court that we were told we had for decades:

Four liberal-leaning justices.

Four conservative-leaning justices.

And a swing vote in John Roberts.

 

[HockeyBjj]

I always reassure leftists on this forum that we don't have an actually conservative Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts can be counted on to defect and join the liberal-leaning justices whenever a case has grabbed a sufficient amount of headlines.

We finally have the Supreme Court that we were told we had for decades:

Four liberal-leaning justices.

Four conservative-leaning justices.

And a swing vote in John Roberts.

What is your opinion on the ruling that federal courts cannot step in to block a blatantly gerrymandered congressional map?

 

[panamaican]

I want to read it in its entirety, especially the dissent, but it looks like they're drawing a distinction between racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. Additionally, they're say that federal courts can't decide what level of partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional a la the Constitution but that doesn't mean that state courts can't determine that these things violate state constitutions and it doesn't mean that Congress can't address the subject, only that federal courts can't make that determination from the bench.

I can get on board with that but, like I said, I really need to read the dissent on this one.

 

[ChainFlow]

I want to read it in its entirety, especially the dissent, but it looks like they're drawing a distinction between racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. Additionally, they're say that federal courts can't decide what level of partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional a la the Constitution but that doesn't mean that state courts can't determine that these things violate state constitutions and it doesn't mean that Congress can't address the subject, only that federal courts can't make that determination from the bench.

I can get on board with that but, like I said, I really need to read the dissent on this one.

Of course, that’s a nonsense distinction when you consider that race and partisanship map close to 1:1 in certain areas of the country, such as the South.

This will enable Republican legislatures to blatantly gerrymander to suppress the black vote and then say “oh, we were just doing it out of partisan corrupt intent”.

 

[Trotsky]

John Roberts:

 

[panamaican]

Of course, that’s a nonsense distinction when you consider that race and partisanship map close to 1:1 in certain areas of the country, such as the South.

This will enable Republican legislatures to blatantly gerrymander to suppress the black vote and then say “oh, we were just doing it out of partisan corrupt intent”.

Without addressing this opinion specifically, it's not a nonsense distinction. Partisan gerrymandering doesn't have to be racial in nature and racial gerrymandering doesn't have to be partisan. Discriminating against the other political party isn't the same as discriminating based on someone's race.

Even when they're closely related, if there's racial gerrymandering then the defendants can allege racial gerrymandering directly. And that would be within the ability of SCOTUS to determine Constitutionality.

 

[ChainFlow]

Without addressing this opinion specifically, it's not a nonsense distinction. Partisan gerrymandering doesn't have to be racial in nature and racial gerrymandering doesn't have to be partisan. Discriminating against the other political party isn't the same as discriminating based on someone's race.

Even when they're closely related, if there's racial gerrymandering then the defendants can allege racial gerrymandering directly. And that would be within the ability of SCOTUS to determine Constitutionality.

The point is that it’s effectively impossible to prove that it’s one and not the other, due to the close mapping of race to political party, therefore this enables both.

The ACLU or whoever can allege racial gerrymandering all they want, the miscreants in the majority opinion have enabled a defense for racial gerrymandering that will be almost impervious. You’d have to catch actual communications or documents specifically admitting to focusing on race. All Republicans have to do is do a search+replace in their documents for “black” to “likely Democrat voters” and they’re scot free.

 

[Trotsky]

I always reassure leftists on this forum that we don't have an actually conservative Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts can be counted on to defect and join the liberal-leaning justices whenever a case has grabbed a sufficient amount of headlines.

We finally have the Supreme Court that we were told we had for decades:

Four liberal-leaning justices.

Four conservative-leaning justices.

And a swing vote in John Roberts.

Color me shocked that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Roberts is a very, very conservative jurist: he was in the majority in Citizens United, in Janus v. AFSCME, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, and really only has one major "swing vote" to his two decade-old record, which was on the ACA.

@HockeyBjj Roberts is generationally conservative. He's just slightly less of an extremist hack piece of shit compared Thomas and Alito.
Thomas: +1.1
Alito: +1.0
Roberts: +0.8
Kennedy: +0.4

Kagan: -0.5
Breyer: -0.6
Sotomayor: -0.6
Ginsburg: -0.7

 

[HunterSdVa29]

so if the parties weren't so divided along ethnic lines, would this even be possible?

serious ?