Jump to content

Jerry Mandering: An enemy of democracy


samhexum
 Share

This topic is 1272 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower court’s order for North Carolina to rework its congressional map because Republicans violated the Constitution by drawing electoral districts intended to maximize their party’s chances of winning.

 

The conservative-majority court granted a bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to suspend the Jan. 9 order by a federal court panel in Greensboro that gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly until Jan. 24 to come up with a new map for U.S. House of Representatives districts.

 

Two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, objected to the high court’s action.

 

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the order reduces the chance that the current district lines will be altered ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. The court offered no reason for its decision.

 

The three-judge panel ruled that the Republican-drawn districts violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by intentionally hobbling the electoral strength of non-Republican voters. Two of the three judges also said the plan ran afoul of the Constitution’s First Amendment by discriminating based on political belief and association.

 

Those judges on Tuesday refused to put the ruling on hold.

 

North Carolina’s congressional maps were challenged in two lawsuits by more than two dozen Democratic voters, the North Carolina Democratic Party and other groups.

 

Under current North Carolina congressional boundaries, Republicans won 10 of the 13 House districts in 2016, despite getting just 53 percent of the statewide vote.

 

The Supreme Court is currently examining two other cases from Wisconsin and Maryland involving claims that electoral districts were manipulated to keep the majority party in power in a manner that violated voters’ constitutional rights. That practice is called partisan gerrymandering.

 

In the Wisconsin case, Democratic voters are challenging Republican-drawn legislative districts. In the Maryland case, Republicans are claiming Democratic lawmakers drew a congressional district in a way that would prevent a Republican candidate from winning.

 

The North Carolina dispute centers on a congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Republican-led legislature in 2016. The Republican lawmaker in charge of the plan said it was crafted to favor his party because he thinks “electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats.”

 

“But that is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative mapdrawers to make,” the lower court said in unanimously striking down the plan.

I can quote The Golden Girls for any situation in life . :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ["Animal Farm"]

 

" ... my library was dukedom large enough" [Prospero - "The Tempest" Act 1, Scene 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did Kagan and Breyer lose their minds?

The Supreme Court has long held that state Gerrymandering for purely political purposes is legal.

 

What’s not legal is to use Gerrymandering to discriminate against a “protected” class.

 

Democrats are not a “protected” class....ergo...it’s legal.

 

Kagan and Breyer just voted in line with long settled judicial precedent.

 

I’m much more interested in the twisted logic Sotomayor and Ginsburg

used to reach their verdicts. The only valid reason they could use is that

they consider democrats to be a “protected” class....and that’s a one sided

political barn door no sane justice would dare to open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has long held that state Gerrymandering for purely political purposes is legal.

 

What’s not legal is to use Gerrymandering to discriminate against a “protected” class.

 

Democrats are not a “protected” class....ergo...it’s legal.

 

Kagan and Breyer just voted in line with long settled judicial precedent.

 

I’m much more interested in the twisted logic Sotomayor and Ginsburg

used to reach their verdicts. The only valid reason they could use is that

they consider democrats to be a “protected” class....and that’s a one sided

political barn door no sane justice would dare to open.

Maybe we should start thinking of "voters" as a protected class who have a right

to choose their representatives in districts that do not have a pre-determined outcome.

Hell hath no fury like a white conservative confronted with the unvarnished history of slavery and racism in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has long held that state Gerrymandering for purely political purposes is legal.

What’s not legal is to use Gerrymandering to discriminate against a “protected” class.

Democrats are not a “protected” class....ergo...it’s legal.

Kagan and Breyer just voted in line with long settled judicial precedent.

I’m much more interested in the twisted logic Sotomayor and Ginsburg

used to reach their verdicts. The only valid reason they could use is that

they consider democrats to be a “protected” class....and that’s a one sided

political barn door no sane justice would dare to open.

 

Thanks for the info. Here is an article that discusses the subject and also briefly discusses the new arguments to perhaps change existing law. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/gerrymander-court-north-carolina-pennsylvania.html

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday struck down the boundaries of the state’s 18 congressional districts, saying they violate the state constitution and granting a major victory to a group of Democratic voters who argued the districts were unconstitutionally gerrymandered to benefit Republicans.

 

The Democratic-controlled court issued a brief order giving the Republican-controlled Legislature until Feb. 9 to pass a replacement and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf until Feb. 15 to submit it to the court. Otherwise, the justices said they will adopt a plan in an effort to keep the May 15 primary election on track.

 

The court said the boundaries “clearly, plainly and palpably” violate the state’s constitution, and blocked it from remaining in effect for the 2018 elections. The deadline to file paperwork to run in primaries for the seats is March 6.

 

Republicans who controlled the Legislature and governor’s office following the 2010 census broke decades of geographical precedent when redrawing the map, producing contorted shapes, including one dubbed “Goofy kicking Donald Duck.”

 

They shifted whole counties and cities into different districts in an effort to protect a Republican advantage in the congressional delegation. They succeeded, securing 13 of 18 seats in a state where registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 5 to 4.

 

“We won the whole thing,” said David Gersch of the Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer law firm in Washington, D.C., which is helping represent the group of registered Democrats who filed the lawsuit last June.

 

The decision has immediate implications for the 2018 election, meaning that 14 sitting members of Congress and dozens more people are running or considering running in districts they may no longer live in.

 

The March 13 special election in a vacant southwestern Pennsylvania seat is unaffected by the order, the justices said.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court also is weighing whether redistricting can be so partisan that it violates the U.S. Constitution, in cases from Maryland and Wisconsin. The high court has never struck down an electoral map as a partisan gerrymander.

I can quote The Golden Girls for any situation in life . :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Because the Penn State Court ruling is based on a violation of the state constitution rather than the Federal Constitution, can the U.S. Supreme Court hear a case brought regarding the state court ruling?

 

The Supreme Court will hear a gerrymandering case but one where Democrats used gerrymandering to gain seats in Congress! Just a reminder that both sides use the tactic but only complain when the other side does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Supreme Court seems divided over Texas redistricting

 

By Associated Press April 24 at 11:58 AM

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appears divided over Texas’ appeal to preserve congressional and legislative districts that a lower court struck down as racially discriminatory.

 

The justices heard arguments Tuesday in the latest round of court action over Texas electoral districts that began in 2011.

 

At issue are two congressional districts and statehouse districts in four counties.

 

The liberal justices seemed favorable to minority voters and civil rights groups that challenged the districts. The court’s conservatives appeared to lean toward the state. Justice Anthony Kennedy said nothing to indicate where his potentially decisive vote would fall.

 

The justices last year kept the challenged districts in place, even after the lower court ruling. Texas held primary elections in those districts in March.

I can quote The Golden Girls for any situation in life . :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...