Dems, GOPers Poised For Supreme Court Fight Over Partisan Gerrymandering

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press




By MARK SHERMAN and SCOTT BAUER, Published SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 12:20 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats and Republicans are poised for a Supreme Court fight about political line-drawing with the potential to alter the balance of power across a country starkly divided between the two parties.

The big question at the heart of next week’s high court clash is whether there can be too much politics in the inherently political task of drawing electoral districts. The Supreme Court has never struck down a districting plan because it was too political.

The test case comes from Wisconsin, where Democratic voters sued after Republicans drew political maps in 2011 that entrenched their hold on power in a state that is essentially evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

“It could portend massive changes in our electoral system,” Washington lawyer Christopher Landau said, if the court for the first time imposes limits on extreme partisan gerrymandering, or redistricting. Courts have struck down racially discriminatory maps for decades.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dems-gop-supreme-court-fight-over-gerrymandering

[BigmanPigman]

1. This should be interesting.

Too bad McConnell's trickster BS got Gorsuch on the court.

[rurallib]

3. Yep - now the obstruction of Garland starts to pay BIG, BIG dividends

for Republicans.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. I won't be hopeful for a bipartisan outcome on this one

The essence of political power is to use it. It would take a movement as massive as the one that
ditched state legislatures from electing Senators in back-room deals.

[procon]

4. It should be illegal to stack the deck to favor the party in power.

Regardless of which side it is, districts should be fairly apportioned. Republicans are so terrified of being primaried by the disproportionate numbers of rightwing crazies that have been stuffed into their district, they can't even consider bipartisan solutions. Maybe ending gerrymandering will restore some degree of normalcy and both side could collaborate on legislation again

[Tiggeroshii]

5. At this point a favorable ruling will just bolster

The Democratic majorities in all legislatures in 2018. Unless it doesn't take affect until 2020? Anybody know?

[MichMan]

6. What if they rule all gerrymandering must stop ?

The Voting Rights Act requires some amount of gerrymandering in order to create majority minority districts. If those are also ruled out, that could mean fewer minority members of congress

[24601]

7. There is USSC precedent: Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) In this case, Indiana

Democrats "challenged the state's 1981 state apportionment scheme for Indiana General Assembly districts because of political gerrymandering. Their argument was that "the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights."

The case was noted for unconventional alliances. The National Republican Committee filed an amicus brief in support of the Indiana Democrats while California house and senate Democrats filed briefs supporting the Republican redistricting plan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_v._Bandemer)

The court decided 7-2 that while the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the Democrats, that effect was not "sufficiently adverse" to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The mere lack of proportional representation did not unconstitutionally diminish the Democrats' electoral power. The Court also ruled (6-3) that political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that judicially manageable standards could be discerned and applied in such cases. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1244)