5 ms·

I think the decisions' example is pretty telling. Does every voter have a right to a competitive election in their district, so that their vote matters at leas

I think the decisions' example is pretty telling. Does every voter have a right to a competitive election in their district, so that their vote matters at least potentially? Or does every voter have a right to their political party getting representation at least approximately equal to their share of the electorate? Those two both sound good, and they point in opposite directions. So, it's not a question of what the law says, it's a question of _values_, of what the law _should_ say. You could argue either side of that, but saying that the Constitution or precedents give a clear guideline for a judge to use in deciding it, is not tenable. Let's say the courts decided to intervene here. What standard should they give? "If it seems really unfair, strike it down?" What looks really unfair to a Democratic-appointed judge is going to be different than what looks really unfair to a Republican-appointed judge.

bb88 7y ago
Except that courts do weigh get asked to weigh in murky situations and come out with a ruling all the time, which is the reason they exist. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said recently, "However one comes out on the legal issues, partisan gerrymandering unsettles the fundamental premise that people elect their representatives, not vice versa." https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ruth-bader-ginsburg-partisan-gerrymandering-census https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ruth-bader-ginsburg-par...
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  No, the reason they exist is to rule on what the law says, even in very murky situations. But I have read no credible case that there is any statement in the Constitution or elsewhere, which they could go by to determine the standard here. The fact that RGB says "However one comes out on the legal issues..." looks like evidence that, at some level, she knows there's not a legal argument here to arrive at the right result. Because the right result is surely to not do things the way we do now. Probably, some kind of multi-rep district system is the right solution. But, that's not a thing the courts can fix, or should attempt to, and they know it.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Does every voter have a right to a competitive election in their district, so that their vote matters at least potentially? Or does every voter have a right to their political party getting representation at least approximately equal to their share of the electorate? Those two both sound good, and they point in opposite directions. No, they don't, unless you view sigle-member districts as mandatory; the fact that sigle-member districts (or, rather, any winner-take-all districts in states with more than a single seat) make essential elements of fairness incompatible reveals that such districts are problematic, sure.

bb88 7y ago

Except that courts do weigh get asked to weigh in murky situations and come out with a ruling all the time, which is the reason they exist. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said recently, "However one comes out on the legal issues, partisan gerrymandering unsettles the fundamental premise that people elect their representatives, not vice versa." https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ruth-bader-ginsburg-partisan-gerrymandering-census https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ruth-bader-ginsburg-par...

rossdavidh 7y ago
No, the reason they exist is to rule on what the law says, even in very murky situations. But I have read no credible case that there is any statement in the Constitution or elsewhere, which they could go by to determine the standard here. The fact that RGB says "However one comes out on the legal issues..." looks like evidence that, at some level, she knows there's not a legal argument here to arrive at the right result. Because the right result is surely to not do things the way we do now. Probably, some kind of multi-rep district system is the right solution. But, that's not a thing the courts can fix, or should attempt to, and they know it.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Does every voter have a right to a competitive election in their district, so that their vote matters at least potentially? Or does every voter have a right to their political party getting representation at least approximately equal to their share of the electorate? Those two both sound good, and they point in opposite directions. No, they don't, unless you view sigle-member districts as mandatory; the fact that sigle-member districts (or, rather, any winner-take-all districts in states with more than a single seat) make essential elements of fairness incompatible reveals that such districts are problematic, sure.