SCOTUS VS VIRGINIA GERRYMANDERING

bacha29

Well-Known Member
Scotus today upheld lower court rejection of redistricting maps that were
obviously gerrymandered by Virginia's GOP controlled legislature and were maps that were basically the same thing as the original map that was rejected by the courts earlier.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
Interesting vote within the SCOTUS ...
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion and was joined by
Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.

Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
It’s not clear to me why ‘gerrymandering’ is legal at all.

SC has upheld certain versions, dismissed other versions.

You’ve seen the gerrymandered maps where it looks like an MRI of brain ganglia, why is that even a thing?

I mean, seriously?

This country is built on ‘inalienable rights’, but I guess adequate and appropriate representation of eligible voters isn’t a ‘right’.

Sad: rickyb + 1
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
It’s not clear to me why ‘gerrymandering’ is legal at all.

SC has upheld certain versions, dismissed other versions.

You’ve seen the gerrymandered maps where it looks like an MRI of brain ganglia, why is that even a thing?

I mean, seriously?

This country is built on ‘inalienable rights’, but I guess adequate and appropriate representation of eligible voters isn’t a ‘right’.

Sad: rickyb + 1
And just think, gerrymandering started in Massachusetts.

Sometimes mapmakers get so specific with carving that the district shapes end up looking pretty bizarre. In the instance that gave the "gerrymander" its name, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry was said to have created an election district that looked like a salamander.


The%20Gerrymander%20Final.jpg
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
It’s not clear to me why ‘gerrymandering’ is legal at all.

SC has upheld certain versions, dismissed other versions.

You’ve seen the gerrymandered maps where it looks like an MRI of brain ganglia, why is that even a thing?

I mean, seriously?

This country is built on ‘inalienable rights’, but I guess adequate and appropriate representation of eligible voters isn’t a ‘right’.

Sad: rickyb + 1
It’s complicated and there’s no easy fix. Maps have to be redrawn after every census to account for population changes. Someone has to make the changes, the current problem is the data has gotten too good and voters have become more polarized and predictable. The population has been self-sorting into predictable democratic educated cities leaving the uneducated rubes covering the sticks. That makes it hard to create reasonable geographic districts that are competitive.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
It’s complicated and there’s no easy fix. Maps have to be redrawn after every census to account for population changes. Someone has to make the changes, the current problem is the data has gotten too good and voters have become more polarized and predictable. The population has been self-sorting into predictable democratic educated cities leaving the uneducated rubes covering the sticks. That makes it hard to create reasonable geographic districts that are competitive.

Right.

But it’s gotten to a point where it’s surgical, for no other reason than to promote one party or another.

Again, I’m not sure why it’s legal.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's legal, it's just whatever they can get away with.
The trouble is that there are no national standards when it comes to drawing district maps. Federal courts for the most part have tried to stay out of the matter leaving it up to the states. However in some cases the gerrymandering has become so egregious that it was left with no choice but to get involved.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering based on political affiliation is not within purview of the Federal Government.
Gerrymandering based on racial, sex, etc. is still within purview of the SCOTUS and other Federal courts.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering based on political affiliation is not within purview of the Federal Government.
Gerrymandering based on racial, sex, etc. is still within purview of the SCOTUS and other Federal courts.
What happens when those are the same? As republicans become ever more the party of old white men how can one distinguish gerrymandering by race/sex from political party?
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
The Supremes ruled a judge had no legal authority to draw maps.
I think you should reread the majority opinion.
Not within purview of the Feferal Courts.

"On the court’s final day of decisions before a summer break, the conservative justices ruled that federal courts have no role to play in the dispute over the practice known as partisan gerrymandering."
 
Last edited:

Turdferguson

Just a turd
I think you should reread the majority opinion.
Not within purview of the Feferal Courts.

"On the court’s final day of decisions before a summer break, the conservative justices ruled that federal courts have no role to play in the dispute over the practice known as partisan gerrymandering."
You took the time to edit your post but left this?
Freaking sad
 
Top