The Supreme Court today rejected the partisan gerrymandering cases brought before it from both Maryland and North Carolina. The 5-4 decision stated that the courts do not have jurisdiction over these cases. “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Roberts wrote.
I’m not arguing one side over the other. But I’m failing to grasp how SCOTUS doesn’t have jurisdiction capabilities. What am I not understanding?
They don’t want to have jurisdiction over it. They have ruled on aspects of gerrymandering many times, but they were always wrong when they ruled on it before, since they never had any jurisdiction. Right?
It seems an odd decision to say the SCOTUS doesn’t have a role in protecting a constitutional right. Maybe this decision is a misprint.
Also, Roberts says that this can be fixed by the legislature. How is that going to work?
We are the only constitutions that allows the elected officials to pick their voters, that is not a good thing.
Also, Roberts says that this can be fixed by the legislature. How is that going to work?
We are the only constitutions that allows the elected officials to pick their voters, that is not a good thing. the voters that picked the officials are picking the voters.
Good point.
Hard to believe these intellectuals cannot call out a screwed up system and the contortions state legislatures go through to keep folks in power.
Also, Roberts says that this can be fixed by the legislature. How is that going to work?
We are the only constitutions that allows the elected officials to pick their voters, that is not a good thing. the voters that picked the officials are picking the voters.
That is not true though. You may have voted for someone and they could even win, but you may be moved out and under someone you didn’t vote for. These gerrymanders can last decades, since a party can use it to maintain control of the map making every decade, so the people that originally voted in the party that made the first maps may be long gone and replaced by others who did not vote for them, but are still stuck under gerrymander.
Fortunately the state courts of Pennsylvania forced them to fix our gerrymandering. I used to live in this district:
This happens once. After that it’s the other way around if the gerrymandering is extreme.
Fortunately the state courts of Pennsylvania forced them to fix our gerrymandering. I used to live in this district:
The gerrymandering isn’t even the worst thing on that map. Those three random I-76 signs are an abomination to cartographers all over the globe.
the voters that picked the officials are picking the voters. //
OR; A minority of voters picked the electoral voters, who picked the president, who picked the Supreme Court justices, who now are picking who gets to run the most candidates and where. Any guess on which party this benefits the most? Of course they said it is not their job, well not anymore since doing their job would require rendering a decision that either made them look like Republican lackeys, or traitors to the party that gave them their jobs…
They don’t want to have jurisdiction over it. They have ruled on aspects of gerrymandering many times, but they were always wrong when they ruled on it before, since they never had any jurisdiction. Right?
isn’t it the lower courts that have made rulings but this time it made its way to the supreme court.
quote “The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.”
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,†the chief justice wrote.
They don’t want to have jurisdiction over it. They have ruled on aspects of gerrymandering many times, but they were always wrong when they ruled on it before, since they never had any jurisdiction. Right?
Which cases would those be? Two cases came to SCOTUS last year and both were remanded (Maryland and Wisconsin) for jurisdictional/standing reasons.
In Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), a plurality determined partisan gerrymandering cases are nonjusticiable because there was no discernible and manageable standard for “adjudicating political gerrymandering claims.”
The only case you might be able to point to is Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). However, in that case said, in theory a court might be able to consider the claim, if the right facts were present.
Want to cite to League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)? The Court found the redistricting violated the Voting Right Act, but, stated the plaintiffs has not demonstrated partisan gerrymandering for the Court to consider.
So, what are these “many times” to which you refer when SCOTUS has ruled on aspects of gerrymandering?
the voters that picked the officials are picking the voters. //
OR; A minority of voters picked the electoral voters, who picked the president, who picked the Supreme Court justices, who now are picking who gets to run the most candidates and where. Any guess on which party this benefits the most? Of course they said it is not their job, well not anymore since doing their job would require rendering a decision that either made them look like Republican lackeys, or traitors to the party that gave them their jobs…
translation: the party I support is not benefiting form this decision and I’m mad as hell. Now, if the party that I support is benefiting than I would be ok with it.
the voters that picked the officials are picking the voters. //
OR; A minority of voters picked the electoral voters, who picked the president, who picked the Supreme Court justices, who now are picking who gets to run the most candidates and where. Any guess on which party this benefits the most? Of course they said it is not their job, well not anymore since doing their job would require rendering a decision that either made them look like Republican lackeys, or traitors to the party that gave them their jobs…
translation: the party I support is not benefiting form this decision and I’m mad as hell. Now, if the party that I support is benefiting than I would be ok with it.
Regardless of what party you identify with, it’s insane to hold that it’s perfectly legitimate for the party in power to reorganize voting districts to ensure it stays in power. Gerrymandering has to be fixed somehow, and it’s not as easy as other issues where you can just say, “Vote out the assholes who did X so you can get new laws.” The gerrymandering itself prevents voters from being able to vote out the assholes.
Okay “several times”. Clearly they were wrong when SCOTUS stated that it could be considered, at least according to this ruling. IMO, this clears the way for more extreme gerrymandering. It appears that there is no longer any level of political gerrymandering that is subject to federal oversight. It seems likely that state courts will become even more partisan over time, and in reality, there is virtually no way to ever address it.
translation: the party I support is not benefiting form this decision and I’m mad as hell.//
No, they didnt make a decision, and yes, I’m for no gerrymandering, by either party, neither of which I belong to…
.
the voters that picked the officials are picking the voters. //
OR; A minority of voters picked the electoral voters, who picked the president, who picked the Supreme Court justices, who now are picking who gets to run the most candidates and where. Any guess on which party this benefits the most? Of course they said it is not their job, well not anymore since doing their job would require rendering a decision that either made them look like Republican lackeys, or traitors to the party that gave them their jobs…
translation: the party I support is not benefiting form this decision and I’m mad as hell. Now, if the party that I support is benefiting than I would be ok with it.
Regardless of what party you identify with, it’s insane to hold that it’s perfectly legitimate for the party in power to reorganize voting districts to ensure it stays in power. Gerrymandering has to be fixed somehow, and it’s not as easy as other issues where you can just say, “Vote out the assholes who did X so you can get new laws.” The gerrymandering itself prevents voters from being able to vote out the assholes.
Agreed. If the Court is going to say the courts cannot address this issue, then, how on earth does it get addressed?
I’m honestly not sure why it isn’t as simple as saying voting districts needs to be contiguous areas with no more than X sides.
It has been fixed in some states. CA did it using voter proposition. Other states by the state courts. But it won’t be done by the legislature in power.
It has been fixed in some states. CA did it using voter proposition. Other states by the state courts. But it won’t be done by the legislature in power.
I’m going to have to look that up. I’m curious to see how it has been addressed. I’m also curious whether the SCOTUS decision may “undue” the state court decisions. Of course, it depends on the rationale of the state court.