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

[m52nickerson]

Oh, I think it can be determined, I just don't know enough law in this area to hazard a guess. Without being able to cite anything, I think the argument goes like this.

The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. Implicit in that right is that your vote being given equal treatment as the votes of other Americans. When a state legislature intentionally alters the district maps in their favor they are treating the votes of Americans differently based on prior political alignment. That difference in treatment negatively impacts the right the vote and means that a constitutional right has been unfairly infringed.

I don't know the case law to support that argument but I'm sure supreme justices could find it if it exists.

The probable test is about the intent behind the redistricting. The legislature will have to demonstrate that the need to redistrict is based on some sort of supported position. I can't imagine what that would look like.

So, while I don't know the exact argument, I do think it's plausible. The question is if the case law supports my line of thought or not.

I would think that argument against gerrymandering could be the equal protection clause. Not hard to see how someone can have there vote power reduced by having gerrymandered districts.

 

[cincymma79]

Oh, I think it can be determined, I just don't know enough law in this area to hazard a guess. Without being able to cite anything, I think the argument goes like this.

The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. Implicit in that right is that your vote being given equal treatment as the votes of other Americans. When a state legislature intentionally alters the district maps in their favor they are treating the votes of Americans differently based on prior political alignment. That difference in treatment negatively impacts the right the vote and means that a constitutional right has been unfairly infringed.

I don't know the case law to support that argument but I'm sure supreme justices could find it if it exists.

The probable test is about the intent behind the redistricting. The legislature will have to demonstrate that the need to redistrict is based on some sort of supported position. I can't imagine what that would look like.

So, while I don't know the exact argument, I do think it's plausible. The question is if the case law supports my line of thought or not.

So let's say a state is 60 white 40 black. Should each district be drawn 60/40? What if that whole county is white? What if counties don't have even populations? Redraw by population? What if hat district is shaped weirdly to create that?

 

[m52nickerson]

So let's say a state is 60 white 40 black. Should each district be drawn 60/40? What if that whole county is white? What if counties don't have even populations? Redraw by population? What if hat district is shaped weirdly to create that?

Earlier in this thread I posted the new rules that were voted in to law in Florida. They would answer all these questions fairly easily.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I've learned from our experience in California that the hatred for extreme gerrymandering among the people transcend party lines.

The Democratic Party owns this state, yet the Governator - a moderate Republican and a complete newbie in politics - managed to whup both Barbara Boxer's and Nancy Pelosi's wrinkly asses in his initiative to eliminate gerrymandering in California.

If a state as partisan as California can do it, there's absolutely no reason why others can't.

------


Proposition 11 of 2008 (or the Voters FIRST Act) was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code.[1] The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.

Supporters

California Common Cause was the advocacy group sponsoring the initiative.

Others supporting the initiative include

• AARP
• NAACP California State Conference
• The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
• The League of Women Voters
• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger[2][3] (Republican)
• Former Governor Gray Davis (Democrat)
• Former State Controller Steve Westly
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Common Cause
• California Forward Action Fund
• California Business Roundtable
• ACLU - Southern California
• Bay Area Council
• Bay Area Leadership Council
• California Black Chamber of Commerce
• California Police Chiefs Association
• League of California Cities
• California Democratic Council
• California Republican Assembly
• California Small Business Association
• California Taxpayers' Association
• California Conference of Carpenters
• Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• IndependentVoice.Org
• National Federation of Independent Business, California
• North San Diego County NAACP
• Neighborhoods for Clean Elections
• Santa Clara Cities Association
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group
• Small Business Action Committee
• California Association of Health Underwriters

Newspaper Editorial boards in favor

• The Los Angeles Times[4]
• The San Francisco Chronicle[5]
• San Jose Mercury News
• Fresno Bee
• The Torrance Daily Breeze
• San Diego Union Tribune
• Pasadena Now
• LA Daily News
• North County Times
• Stockton Record
• San Gabriel Valley Tribune
• Santa Cruz Sentinel
• Lompoc Record

Donors supporting Prop 11

• Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team, $2,446,000.[10]
• Charles Munger Jr., son of billionaire Charles Munger, $1 million
• Michael Bloomberg (the mayor of New York City), $250,000.[11]
• Howard Lester (of Williams-Sonoma), $250,000.
• Brian Harvey, president of Cypress Land Company, $250,000.[12]
• Reed Hastings, founder of Netflix, $250,000 [12]
• New Majority California PAC, $237,500.
• Meg Whitman, CEO, eBay, $200,000.[12]
• William Bloomfield, $150,000

Opposition

The official committee set up to oppose Proposition 11 was called "Citizens for Accountability; No on Proposition 11".[22] Paul Hefner is the spokesman for the "No on 11" effort.[23]

Opponents to Prop. 11 include

• U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer,
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
• the California Democratic Party,
• the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,
• the NAACP Defense Fund
• the Asian-American Pacific Legal Center

Donations to opposition campaign

As of September 24, the opposition committee, "Citizens for Accountability; No on 11", had raised $350,000:

• California Democratic Party, $75,000.
• California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Truth in American Government Fund, $250,000.
• Members' Voice of the State Building Trades, $25,000.[29]
• "Voter's First" campaign committee, $40,000

Result of vote




Yes 6,095,033 (50.82%)

No 5,897,655 (49.18%)​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_11_(2008)

I'm very encouraged by what has gone on in California, but.... to be honest.... I dunno. I dunno how well that kind of effort can succeed elsewhere. Sure, California is highly partisan, but it's also crammed full of activists of all sorts and has a very fluid, interactive political culture.
Gerrymandering has literally kept me up at night lol.
#Americanist

 

[Arkain2K]

Unless the Supreme Court wants to be responsible for the drawing of every congressional district nation wide, I fail to see how they could logically interfere with how states draw their own districts.

They could urge all the other states to do what we're doing and transfer redistricting responsibilities to an independent commission not beholden to any single political party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission

California's Citizens Redistricting Commission is comprised of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 4 Independents. No politicians allowed.

So again, what is your proposal other than let your guys do it

Independant commision, like the calafornian one posted earlier.

That the state legislature votes on. How is that better? Extra layer?

Seriously, do you have a severe reading-comprehension issue or something?

Politicians in California are banned from Redistricting duty, period. The info in that link should make that abundantly clear for anyone with basic reading skills.

It's not that there are no other alternatives to extreme partisan gerrymandering being brought up in this discussion - it's simply that you can't read.

I find it amusing a government commission will be overseeing the government on the issue and everyone thinks that will do. What if we form a commission to oversee the commission that oversees districting? That'll keep he honest and create jobs

Dude, you're like an obnoxious donkey wandering into a conference room and just wouldn't stop honking loudly while other people are having a debate.

I believe I speak for everyone here when I say you seriously need to shut the hell up with all these worthless posts until you learn how to read ALL the useful information already posted in this thread, particularly those pertaining to prior successful anti-gerrymandering efforts.

For the last damn time, we're talking about independent CITIZENS commissions not beholden to the political party in power, whose work's integrity is held accountable by their State Supreme Court, and it's working out beautifully in ALL the states where the district maps are no longer drawn by politicians, in oppose to all the extreme partisan gerrymandering paradises being named and shamed in this discussion, as well as on front of the U.S Supreme Court.

If you have another idiotic question as to how they managed to do it, rest be assured that there's a 99% chance it has already been addressed in the first 5 pages. All you have to do is to read the answers already provided right on front of you!

 

[cincymma79]

Earlier in this thread I posted the new rules that were voted in to law in Florida. They would answer all these questions fairly easily.

THe contiguous part works. The others are still going to be subjective and when the person they don't want gets elected you'll still hear these arguments

 

[cincymma79]

Dude, you're like an obnoxious donkey wandering into a conference room and just wouldn't stop honking loudly while other people are having a debate.

I believe I speak for everyone here when I say you seriously need to shut the hell up with all these worthless posts until you learn how to read ALL the useful information already posted in this thread, particularly those pertaining to prior successful anti-gerrymandering efforts.

For the last damn time, we're talking about independent CITIZENS commissions not beholden to the political party in power, whose work's integrity is held accountable by their State Supreme Court, and it's working out beautifully in ALL the states where the district maps are no longer drawn by politicians, in oppose to all the extreme partisan gerrymandering paradises being named and shamed in this discussion, as well as on front of the U.S Supreme Court.

If you have another idiotic question as to how they managed to do it, rest be assured that there's a 99% chance it has already been addressed in the first 5 pages. All you have to do is to read the answers already provided right on front of you!

First eat me
Second, show how ohio districts don't follow this
"a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication..."
Most of Ohio is rural except for areas like Cincinnati Columbus and Dayton. 100miles from Cincinnati to Columbus might all be fields/farmland. I drive it when I visit hospitals for work. It's grass in every direction until you hit those areas. That map of Ohio is not as bad as you think.

In spite of that, gerrymandering is bad and should be stopped but I don't believe that is actually possible. All you can do is include more people in it. In California where half the population is democrat and a quartet or republican is probably is a little easier to divide it up. I'm not so sure swing states will be as easy.

I looked at your link and it doesn't really explain what criteria is used to decide a district in specific terms. They're pretty general like the above quote. I suppose the fact people agree on the lines is good enough

 

[Arkain2K]

Because most people aren't paying attention to it. And for the ones who are paying attention, if they're not in power then they have no ability to change it. And the ones who are in power, they have no incentive to change it.

Which is why it's really only the fed who can force any change on this subject.

I'm very encouraged by what has gone on in California, but.... to be honest.... I dunno. I dunno how well that kind of effort can succeed elsewhere. Sure, California is highly partisan, but it's also crammed full of activists of all sorts and has a very fluid, interactive political culture.
Gerrymandering has literally kept me up at night lol.
#Americanist

This is an extremely helpful tracker on each state's redistricting procedures (as well as the latest news developments):

https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

The bad news is, an overwhelming majority of states are still stuck in the old system (Legislature draws the maps, Governor can approve/rejects, and the people are screwed if the same party controls both branches).

The good news is, more and more states in the West have since followed California's lead and enacted new laws to assign redistricting duties to an independent conmission answerable to their state Supreme Court, namely Arizona, Washington, and Idaho.

If potato farmers in Idaho can do it, surely your state can do it!

 

[m52nickerson]

THe contiguous part works. The others are still going to be subjective and when the person they don't want gets elected you'll still hear these arguments

Hearing the arguments does not mean they are going to carry and weight.

 

[Rod1]

IMO, this is a State issue, not a Federal one, and the SCOTUS justices are understandably wary about making judgements on district maps for years to come.

Honestly, I don't understand why people from so many States still wouldn't stand up to take redistricting powers away from the dirty politicians and hands it over to an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission like we do.

Because of identity politics.

Some people dont give a shit about anything but having their side win for reasons unknown.

Thats why Democrats are always in a weaker position, their base is more likely to make them pay for their mistakes.

 

[Arkain2K]

Because of identity politics.

Some people dont give a shit about anything but having their side win for reasons unknown.

Thats why Democrats are always in a weaker position, their base is more likely to make them pay for their mistakes.

I can't speak for other States, only my own.

Here in California, most people have already long forgotten that Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of California's Democratic Party fought tooth and nail against Arnold's effort to eliminate gerrymandering in our state.

Aside from the obvious humiliation when most of California voters said "Screw you! I'm with Arnold!", the Democratic leaders on the wrong side of CA history were not punished in anyway for their regressive behavior. Their political career went on as if nothing ever happened, and now I'm quite confident that many Democratic politicians from California are now pretending that their side is against gerrymandering all along.

There's a good reason why Arnold is chosen to be the face of the operation, standing on front of the Supreme Court rallying people to the cause, not Nancy Pelosi or any other high-flying Democrats from California: He isn't a hypocrite like they are.

That is why all the finger pointings by the useful idiots in this discussion disgusts me, they still get sucked into the identity politics game like dumb little children, when we finally have a real bipartisan effort from both side of the isle to eliminate gerrymandering once and for all.

 

[Rod1]

I can't speak for other States, only my own.

Here in California, most people have already long forgotten that Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of California's Democratic Party fought tooth and nail against Arnold's effort to eliminate gerrymandering in our state.

Aside from the obvious humiliation when most of California voters said "Screw you! I'm with Arnold!", the Democratic leaders on the wrong side of CA history were not punished in anyway for their regressive behavior. Their political career went on as if nothing ever happened, and now I'm quite confident that many Democratic politicians from California are now pretending that their side is against gerrymandering all along.

There's a good reason why Arnold is chosen to be the face of the operation, standing on front of the Supreme Court rallying people to the cause, not Nancy Pelosi or any other high-flying Democrats from California: He isn't a hypocrite like they are.

That is why all the finger pointings by the useful idiots in this discussion disgusts me, they still get sucked into the identity politics game like dumb little children, when we finally have a real bipartisan effort from both side of the isle to eliminate gerrymandering once and for all.

That´s the point, California despite being a blue state, sided with the republican governor over policy.

California put policy over party, you wont see that on red states, thats why you keep wondering why red states voters are willing to give up their voice over identity and partisan politics.

Im not saying the Democratic party is better than the Republican party, im saying that Democratic voters will make Democrats pay when they start ignoring their demands, the same is not true for the Republican voters who see policy as secondary.

 

[Arkain2K]

That´s the point, California despite being a blue state, sided with the republican governor over policy.

California put policy over party, you wont see that on red states, thats why you keep wondering why red states voters are willing to give up their voice over identity and partisan politics.

Senator John McCain's home state of Arizona is a solid Red State where the people also voted against Gerrymandering, despite the Republicans were/are in power for decades now. So is Idaho.

http://www.gvnews.com/proposition-a...cle_a0865a99-21d8-5e31-a6fc-19a12024d2ba.html

Red or Blue, industrialized cities or rural countryside, it's already been proven that the extermination of Gerrymandering CAN be done, as long as the People themselves decide to stop pointing fingers and start thinking with their own brains. Anything else is just cheap excuses by useful idiots and kool-aide dispensing politicians at this point.

 

[Rod1]

Arizona is a solid Red State where the people also voted against Gerrymandering, despite the Republicans were/are in power for decades now.

http://www.gvnews.com/proposition-a...cle_a0865a99-21d8-5e31-a6fc-19a12024d2ba.html

Arizona is special.

 

[Arkain2K]

Supreme Court gerrymandering ruling hangs on Justice Kennedy
By Stephen Gottlieb, opinion contributor — 10/13/17

Gerrymandering legislative district lines has given Republicans control of the House of Representatives and most state legislatures despite greater nationwide vote totals for Democratic candidates in some of the same elections. In recent elections, Republicans made a concerted effort to consolidate control of Congress and state legislatures by gerrymandering legislative districts for both state and House seats.

In the 2012 elections for the Wisconsin State Assembly, Democrats won 53 percent of the votes to the Republicans 47 percent, but Democrats only took 39 seats while Republicans took 60 seats. In 2016, the vote tallies were reversed but the seats taken were not. Republicans took 53 percent of the vote to the Democrats 47 percent, but Republicans increased to 64 seats while the Democrats went down to 35 seats.

In other words, 53 percent of the vote was worth 64 seats in Republican hands but only 39 seats in Democratic hands. What accounted for that was the way the district lines were drawn to make the most of each Republican vote and the least of Democratic ones. The elections weren’t determined by the voters, but by the power of Republicans to assign district lines. The challenge by Democrats to the Wisconsin gerrymandering is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Gill v. Whitford, where it was just argued.
Favoring one party or the other is not particularly difficult. If Democrats are “stacked” into a few districts in which they have overwhelming majorities, the remaining votes can be spread or “cracked” much more thinly among the remaining districts and enable Republicans to win over a number of districts that can create large advantages independent of votes. Illustrating the power of gerrymandering, with brief exceptions, from 1874 to 2008, Republicans controlled the New York State Senate and still do in a coalition, while the New York State Assembly, elected by the same voters, has been under consistent Democratic control since 1974.

In Gill, the issue is whether Wisconsin’s districts conflict with the First Amendment because voters were assigned to districts by their political views, or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the power of one party’s voters are maximized while the others are minimized. Given the opinions in prior cases, everything seemed to hang on whether Justice Anthony Kennedy would find that the unfairness or inequality can be measured well enough. In those earlier cases, he had expressed both interest and doubt about the possibility of properly measuring the bias in district lines.

There’s pretty good evidence that the other justices are split 4-4. At the argument in the U.S. Supreme Court, the liberal justices made reasonably clear their support for a standard to eliminate biased gerrymandering. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested standards that courts could manage. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested voters would think gerrymandered elections are rigged, therefore leaving little of the “precious right to vote.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what gerrymandering does to improve democracy. Justice Elena Kagan stood up for the effectiveness of the science for measuring the bias in the districting.

Kennedy, however, said nothing about the reliability of the various measures of gerrymandering. He also asked no questions of the attorney for the plaintiffs who are seeking a limit on the ways lines are drawn. Kennedy did challenge his more conservative colleagues on “standing” as to whether the interests of the plaintiffs in the way other people’s districts were designed entitled them to sue. He seemed to say they had interests the law should respect.

Perhaps a more revealing tea leaf is his question whether it would be legal if “a state constitution or state statute says all districts shall be designed…to increase…have a maximum number of votes for party X or party Y.” By hypothesizing motive on the face of such official language, he made it difficult to argue that gerrymandering could be conceptually acceptable.

Even Justice Samuel Alito and the attorneys for the respondent state parties found themselves unable to resist the conclusion that gerrymandering is illegal in that form. His question left little ground to sustain the Wisconsin districts unless there is no good way to measure the extent of gerrymandering. So the decision probably does depend on Kennedy’s view of the strength of the statistical tests for biased line drawing, the issue on which Kennedy was silent.

The justices, when candidates for confirmation, are all primed to tell us they don’t really do anything but call balls and strikes or similar metaphors. Actually none of them do that and none of them can. All judges have their own judicial and social philosophies, whether they are willing to share or not. The Gill case, argued earlier this month, will make clear whose view of law incorporates a concept of democracy that can be distinguished from might makes right. We’ll know by June.


Stephen Gottlieb is the Jay and Ruth Caplan distinguished professor at Albany Law School and an expert in constitutional law. He has served on the board of the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York advisory committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. His latest book is “Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and The Breakdown of American Politics.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...errymandering-ruling-hangs-on-justice-kennedy

 

[Arkain2K]

The Supreme Court Is Finally Tackling Gerrymandering
Academics give SCOTUS cover to rule on extreme cases of redistricting.
By Peter Coy and Greg Stohr | January 19, 2018

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. hates gerrymandering cases. When courts overturn legislatures’ redistricting maps, “you’re taking these issues away from democracy” and deciding them on what “I can only describe as sociological gobbledygook,” Roberts said in October during oral arguments in a Wisconsin redistricting case, Gill v. Whitford.

For years the U.S. Supreme Court has been unwilling to tackle partisan gerrymandering. That left state political parties free to redraw voting maps in egregious ways using ever more powerful software. But the high court may finally be ready to crack down on extreme cases of gerrymandering. It’s taking up two cases this term, including the one in Wisconsin, where Democrats are challenging the Republican-drawn map used to elect the state assembly. The other, Benisek v. Lamone, which it will hear this spring, concerns a Democrat-drawn congressional district in Maryland.

Political scientists, statisticians, and other number-crunchers have worked hard to reassure the justices that it’s possible to decide cases in a way that won’t expose them to accusations of playing politics. The same sophisticated tools that legislatures use to give their party an advantage can also be used to judge when a party has verged into the realm of unconstitutional bias. “We totally know how to do this,” says Gary King, a political scientist at Harvard, who’s consulted for both major parties as well as independents and courts on redistricting issues.

Lower courts are also pressuring the high court to act. On Jan. 9 a three-judge federal panel came down against gerrymandering in a North Carolina case, saying judges should be open to “new academic theories”—a message that seemed to be aimed at the Supreme Court.

Those theories aren’t all new. King and a co-author, Robert Browning, came up with the principle of “partisan symmetry” in 1987. It says, simply enough, that districts should be drawn so the parties would achieve the same outcomes given the same number of votes. For example, if the lines are drawn such that Republicans win 80 percent of a state’s seats when they have only 55 percent of the votes, that’s fine—as long as Democrats would also win 80 percent of the seats when they have 55 percent of the votes.

King and two colleagues offered the partisan symmetry standard to the Supreme Court in a 2006 redistricting case, LULAC v. Perry. By King’s count, it was discussed and positively evaluated in three of the opinions, including the plurality one. Justice John Paul Stevens (since retired), joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, said it could be “a helpful (though certainly not talismanic) tool.” In the Wisconsin case, the Democrats say one way to assess partisan symmetry is through a measure called the “efficiency gap,” which looks at how many votes a party “wastes” by winning one district with a large margin while losing another by a whisker.

King argues that the Supreme Court should avoid drawing a sharp line between what’s acceptable and not, because that would encourage redistricters to “crawl right up to the edge.” Instead, he says, it should state the principle of partisan symmetry and make clear to both parties that if they violate it, the courts could take over redistricting in their states. “They’ll be scared to death” and will stay well away from the edge, King says.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, he joined a majority in upholding a Pennsylvania congressional map. But he refused to say that partisan gerrymandering claims aren’t “justiciable”—that is, courts aren’t capable of resolving them. That left open the possibility a standard could be developed. In the Gill v. Whitford arguments, Kennedy pushed a lawyer for the Republicans to concede that it would be unconstitutional for a state to pass a redistricting law explicitly written to favor one party or the other. That’s a step toward saying that extremely partisan redistricting could also be unconstitutional.

Kennedy, 81, is “getting older, and there’s a good reason to think he might want to establish a legacy to American democracy” by helping craft a standard for partisan gerrymandering, King says. If the court doesn’t come down on gerrymandering this term, it’s hard to see when it would. Says Richard Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of California at Irvine School of Law: “This is the use-it-or-lose-it moment.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...reme-court-is-finally-tackling-gerrymandering

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[HockeyBjj]

Party in charge gets to draw up the districts, but if the courts shoot it down for gerrymandering, the minority party gets to then draw them up (if shot down, then it’s back to the majority for another stab)

That should solve the problem of the ruling party trying to make th districts as biased as possible that they can get away with. If they get overruled, they can just try again a hairs’ ass better and repeat

My system, they can’t go too far away from fully fair without risking losing that advantage

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Gerrymandering is patently undemocratic.

I can't believe they couldn't write a program to draw the lines , take it out of human hands to a degree .

 

[Quipling]

People should watch this one as distinct from some of the other challenges. There's an important difference between how the Supreme Court will treat a state court striking down the congressional map on the basis of the state constitution and how it will review federal panel doing so on the basis of the US constitution or a federal statute.

also
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/this-week-in-gerrymandering.3698009/