9 ms·

Yes, when gerrymandering was challenged in 2019 a bunch of mathematicians filed an amicus brief with a mathematical fairness test. Their work is here: https://m

by Joeri 4y ago

Yes, when gerrymandering was challenged in 2019 a bunch of mathematicians filed an amicus brief with a mathematical fairness test. Their work is here: https://mggg.org/ https://mggg.org/ Other tests and models have also been proposed in the challenges to gerrymandering. The supreme court just had to pick one. But what the court ruled in 2019, along strict partisan lines, is this: The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the remit of these courts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause So just like how the supreme court ruled in citizens united that it wouldn’t put any limits on money in politics, it ruled in this case that it wouldn’t prevent politicians from redistricting in their favor. The supreme court is imho part of the problem of American politics, not part of the solution.

raverbashing 4y ago
Translation: get the "wrong" unlimited money and the "wrong" party gerrymandering and they might get off their behinds and change their opinions Now as for the SC being part of the problem, well, maybe it's an issue of assignments and term limits, but it is not as simple as not having one
mannerheim 4y ago
The correct legal decisions were made in both cases. In Rucho, > Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. As for Citizens United, the law granted the FEC to pick and choose who was allowed to exercise political speech: > The Chief Justice wrote separately to explain why the Court went as far as it did. Essentially, Roberts explained what I’ve written in this article: that there was no rhyme or reason anymore to which entities were allowed to influence elections and which weren’t. According to the government, Michael Moore can but Citizens United couldn’t. The New York Times (a corporation) can but other corporations couldn’t. There were so many holes and exceptions to the law organizations had been essentially reduced to asking the government for permission to criticize it, and that is contrary to the essential purpose of the First Amendment. No more narrow exceptions given to one group but not another, the whole thing must go. https://www.cato.org/commentary/michael-moore-trumpland-might-have-been-illegal-citizens-united-its-all-incredibly https://www.cato.org/commentary/michael-moore-trumpland-migh... They even went as far as to claim the authority to ban books: > A close reading of the transcript, however, reveals that General Kagan did not change the government’s answer. She suggests that someone who had their book banned by the FEC would have a “quite good as-applied challenge,” and suggests (wrongly, it turns out) that the FEC has never pursued books in any enforcement issue. > This is not the same, however, as saying flatly that under no circumstances does the government have the authority, under the Constitution and the First Amendment, to ban books for political content. Instead, Kagan asserts only that the statute in question (203) does not currently cover books, while conceding that another (441b) does cover books — but she promises they won’t use it to go after books. Promise, pinky-swear! (yes, that Kagan as well in case you were wondering) https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-book-banning/ https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-b...
- rob74 4y ago
  > Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. ...so the very legislatures that practice gerrymandering to make sure their party stays in power should, after a sudden revelation that this practice is distasteful and unjust, decide to forbid themselves from doing it? Yeah, that sounds very likely!
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    It's admittedly unlikely, but the 17th Amendment which required direct election of senators was ratified by state legislatures who previously had that power. In this case, Congress would have the power to do so if state legislatures will not (and for that matter, some states have).
- vkou 4y ago
  > In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. You're saying that SCOTUS shouldn't act until the people rigging elections in their favour... Voluntarily stop rigging elections in their favour? I'm not sure if that argument is just nakedly partisan, or is simply one that doesn't make a lick of sense. It's right up there with 'criminals should preside over their own trials' and 'the watchmen should watch themselves'.
  - pavlov 4y ago
    It feels like a similar interpretation of checks and balances as Nixon's belief that the President cannot commit a crime.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    I'm saying that, like it or not, there's simply no legal basis for SCOTUS to ban gerrymandering if gerrymandering isn't illegal.

by Joeri 4y ago

raverbashing 4y ago

Translation: get the "wrong" unlimited money and the "wrong" party gerrymandering and they might get off their behinds and change their opinions Now as for the SC being part of the problem, well, maybe it's an issue of assignments and term limits, but it is not as simple as not having one

mannerheim 4y ago

The correct legal decisions were made in both cases. In Rucho, > Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. As for Citizens United, the law granted the FEC to pick and choose who was allowed to exercise political speech: > The Chief Justice wrote separately to explain why the Court went as far as it did. Essentially, Roberts explained what I’ve written in this article: that there was no rhyme or reason anymore to which entities were allowed to influence elections and which weren’t. According to the government, Michael Moore can but Citizens United couldn’t. The New York Times (a corporation) can but other corporations couldn’t. There were so many holes and exceptions to the law organizations had been essentially reduced to asking the government for permission to criticize it, and that is contrary to the essential purpose of the First Amendment. No more narrow exceptions given to one group but not another, the whole thing must go. https://www.cato.org/commentary/michael-moore-trumpland-might-have-been-illegal-citizens-united-its-all-incredibly https://www.cato.org/commentary/michael-moore-trumpland-migh... They even went as far as to claim the authority to ban books: > A close reading of the transcript, however, reveals that General Kagan did not change the government’s answer. She suggests that someone who had their book banned by the FEC would have a “quite good as-applied challenge,” and suggests (wrongly, it turns out) that the FEC has never pursued books in any enforcement issue. > This is not the same, however, as saying flatly that under no circumstances does the government have the authority, under the Constitution and the First Amendment, to ban books for political content. Instead, Kagan asserts only that the statute in question (203) does not currently cover books, while conceding that another (441b) does cover books — but she promises they won’t use it to go after books. Promise, pinky-swear! (yes, that Kagan as well in case you were wondering) https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-book-banning/ https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-b...

rob74 4y ago
> Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. ...so the very legislatures that practice gerrymandering to make sure their party stays in power should, after a sudden revelation that this practice is distasteful and unjust, decide to forbid themselves from doing it? Yeah, that sounds very likely!
- mannerheim 4y ago
  It's admittedly unlikely, but the 17th Amendment which required direct election of senators was ratified by state legislatures who previously had that power. In this case, Congress would have the power to do so if state legislatures will not (and for that matter, some states have).
vkou 4y ago
> In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. You're saying that SCOTUS shouldn't act until the people rigging elections in their favour... Voluntarily stop rigging elections in their favour? I'm not sure if that argument is just nakedly partisan, or is simply one that doesn't make a lick of sense. It's right up there with 'criminals should preside over their own trials' and 'the watchmen should watch themselves'.
- pavlov 4y ago
  It feels like a similar interpretation of checks and balances as Nixon's belief that the President cannot commit a crime.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  I'm saying that, like it or not, there's simply no legal basis for SCOTUS to ban gerrymandering if gerrymandering isn't illegal.