Of course the extreme right-wing Supreme Court wants to leave the gerrymander stake through the heart of democracy. It is the only way they can win congressional and state legislative districts.
When Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry (trivia fact: Gerry was one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence) figured out that he could use census data to carve up districts to political advantage in 1812, there were two relevant differences from today:
1. There were no computers to allow the very precise engineering of districts with the political precision of today, to the point where a state like North Carolina can have a roughly 50-50 partisan split in the vote but have districts won by Republicans 80% to 20%.
2. There was no Fourteenth Amendment (enacted in 1868) that guaranteed equal protection of the law, which is the basis for many of the other rulings that protect the rights of women (following the 19th Amendment) and minorities.
A number of states (including my state of California as well as twenty others to varying degrees, some just enacted via the 2018 midterm elections) have already outlawed gerrymandering by having the actual districts drawn by independent commissions with appointees from both parties and independents, and specifications in the laws that spell out how districts are to be drawn in terms of reasonable compactness, following natural and political boundaries where feasible, etc.
In the 21st century, with computerized precision and our Fourteenth Amendment, is defies logic and morality that any court could find gerrymandering constitutional. Of course, logic and morality are not characteristics usually associated with the Republican appointees on today’s Supreme Court.
I’ve been disappointed before in some decisions the court has made, but never as much as this one. It is just not right!! They could have fixed it instead of passing the buck!
Who said the courts are impartial and unbiased. no one gets on the bench unless they have a political agenda that matches the leader who appoints them. just like everything else it is all political.
A correct decision. To impose a solution from the bench is exactly what the founders did not want.
This was and always will be the prerogative of the State, unless and until the issue is addressed by Amendment.
I find it especially amusing that the party that created the Illinois 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Districts are whining about gerrymandering. Each of these bizarre shapes crafted to cater specifically to race.
DD Wiz Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Of course the extreme right-wing Supreme Court wants to leave the gerrymander stake through the heart of democracy. It is the only way they can win congressional and state legislative districts.
When Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry (trivia fact: Gerry was one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence) figured out that he could use census data to carve up districts to political advantage in 1812, there were two relevant differences from today:
1. There were no computers to allow the very precise engineering of districts with the political precision of today, to the point where a state like North Carolina can have a roughly 50-50 partisan split in the vote but have districts won by Republicans 80% to 20%.
2. There was no Fourteenth Amendment (enacted in 1868) that guaranteed equal protection of the law, which is the basis for many of the other rulings that protect the rights of women (following the 19th Amendment) and minorities.
A number of states (including my state of California as well as twenty others to varying degrees, some just enacted via the 2018 midterm elections) have already outlawed gerrymandering by having the actual districts drawn by independent commissions with appointees from both parties and independents, and specifications in the laws that spell out how districts are to be drawn in terms of reasonable compactness, following natural and political boundaries where feasible, etc.
In the 21st century, with computerized precision and our Fourteenth Amendment, is defies logic and morality that any court could find gerrymandering constitutional. Of course, logic and morality are not characteristics usually associated with the Republican appointees on today’s Supreme Court.
Dtroutma almost 5 years ago
Both parties have indeed done it over the years, but none as egregiously as the current crop of Republicans. But regardless, party, it has to stop.
Skylark almost 5 years ago
I’ve been disappointed before in some decisions the court has made, but never as much as this one. It is just not right!! They could have fixed it instead of passing the buck!
kaffekup almost 5 years ago
I would have no problem with states that go Democratic next election gerrymandering the s#+t out of their districts.
Babs Maloney Premium Member almost 5 years ago
All the more reason to work just as hard on State and local elections as we do on the Nationals.
Gary Williams Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Who said the courts are impartial and unbiased. no one gets on the bench unless they have a political agenda that matches the leader who appoints them. just like everything else it is all political.
ndblackirish97 almost 5 years ago
I mean if you look at a district map and it looks like an ink blot a psychiatrist shows you during a psyche evaluation then we have a serious problem.
Stephen Runnels Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Roberts led the way with Citizens United, So leading the way with Gerrymandering is just one more step into Fascism.
Andylit Premium Member almost 5 years ago
A correct decision. To impose a solution from the bench is exactly what the founders did not want.
This was and always will be the prerogative of the State, unless and until the issue is addressed by Amendment.
I find it especially amusing that the party that created the Illinois 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Districts are whining about gerrymandering. Each of these bizarre shapes crafted to cater specifically to race.