Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Did Gerrymander get the boot today?

January 9, 2018 By AmberPaw 13 Comments

A Federal Court in North Carolina issued a 205 page opinion striking down the recent changes in electoral districts for congress in that state. Did that truly give Ol’Gerrymander a boot? Likely the issue is now headed for the USSCT. Read it and tell me what you think: 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: Editor, User

Comments

  1. Christopher says

    January 9, 2018 at 10:34 pm

    Honestly, I have never understood the constitutional case against gerrymandering. I don’t like it, but it seems the only constitutional question is if the numbers are equitable.

    Log in to Reply
    • bob-gardner says

      January 10, 2018 at 8:50 am

      “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Anatole France.
      Equitable like this, Christopher?

      Log in to Reply
    • marcus-graly says

      January 10, 2018 at 9:19 am

      It rather clearly runs afoul of the notions of freedom of association and equal protection of the law, the problem has always been a judicially enforceable standard. Prior to the 1960s the court allowed districts to be unequal population too, which led to tremendous inequalities in representation. What is the fundamental difference between cutting, say, Austin, TX into six different districts so that none of its Congressmen represent its interests, verses giving it a very large district? Both of it ensure it has less representation, but you only think one is unconstitutional?

      Log in to Reply
      • Christopher says

        January 10, 2018 at 3:51 pm

        Unequal populations clearly violate equal protection, but I don’t see a constitutional case for basically saying we can’t elect the people we want.

        Log in to Reply
  2. marcus-graly says

    January 10, 2018 at 9:28 am

    My concern is that this decision’s logic only really works because the NC Republicans openly and brazenly proclaimed that they were creating a partisan Gerrymander, which itself was an intentional defense against charges of racial Gerrymandering. Future legislatures will not be so foolish.

    Log in to Reply
    • jconway says

      January 10, 2018 at 9:44 am

      That’s the big issue with the Supreme Court weighing in. It may be that they finally just mandate independent redistricting commissions for all 50 states. Or That seems to be the equitable solution. Otherwise if you narrow the scope to race, they will find a way around it. If you narrow the scope to politics, people will find a way around it. I am glad the MD case is coming under scrutiny too. This is not a fundamentally partisan issue, even if Democrats have been primarily on the receiving end of the losses lately. Maryland and Illinois are prime suspects as well, as was California before it’s voters adopted independent redistricting. MMP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation) would be an even better result, but surely a pipe dream.

      Log in to Reply
  3. petr says

    January 10, 2018 at 11:55 am

    A Federal Court in North Carolina issued a 205 page opinion striking down the recent changes in electoral districts for congress in that state. Did that truly give Ol’Gerrymander a boot? Likely the issue is now headed for the USSCT

    The Supreme Court already heard Gill v Whitford this term and will hear this one also.

    The question has never been whether or no to give gerrymandering the boot, but how to come up with legally clean tests to determine A) if it is occurring for solely partisan reasons and 2) methods of drawing maps that are both equitable and constitutionally permissible: in previous cases the Supremes as much as said ‘if you can prove it, we’ll strike it down.’

    Log in to Reply
    • Trickle up says

      January 10, 2018 at 1:21 pm

      Don’t forget iii): whether partisan gerrymandering that is not racially motivated is permissible under the Constitution. (I know what I’d say, but that is not the point.)

      Log in to Reply
      • Christopher says

        January 10, 2018 at 3:54 pm

        So many permutations, which is exactly why constitutionally none of it should matter. Nobody is counted as 3/5 of a person anymore so everything else is a political question.

        Log in to Reply
        • bob-gardner says

          January 11, 2018 at 7:04 am

          That was the argument in Plessy v Fergueson, that as long as there was some kind of lip service paid to “equality” that pretty much nothing else mattered an the courts should just stay out of it.
          Or the arguments used to justify “literacy tests” for voting because, after all, the tests apply to everyone.
          Or poll taxes, since they apply to everyone.
          It’s true that it will take some judgment and study to decide between different interests and different arguments, but that’s the reason that we have courts. You seem to be arguing that your willful ignorance should be enough to decide constitutional questions.

          Log in to Reply
          • Christopher says

            January 11, 2018 at 3:30 pm

            Poll taxes keep people from voting (and are expressly unconstitutional per amendment). Literacy tests are irrelevant and WERE applied unequally. Plus have you seen these “literacy” tests? Some of them at least weren’t so much about literacy as they were brain teasers designed to be confusing.

            Log in to Reply
            • bob-gardner says

              January 11, 2018 at 6:19 pm

              Until someone went to court, all these things were just political questions.

              Log in to Reply
  4. centralmassdad says

    January 12, 2018 at 2:49 pm

    The argument in Gill v. Whitford was pretty interesting to listen to. It sure seemed to me like there are 5 justices who think that the practice is grossly undemocratic and corrupt, but I don’t think there are 5 that think that there is a way for the judiciary to (i) identify the problem, even in marginal cases, and (ii) remedy it, in a way that is not also grossly undemocratic and corrupt.

    The founders were correct in identifying the toxic effect of political parties, but, alas, quite naive in their belief that we would never be afflicted by them.

    Plaintiffs originally had a pretty neat idea using statistics, counting something they called “voting efficiency” which measures how likely your vote is to be meaningful in an actual rather than purely symbolic sense. A vote is less meaningful in a gerrymandered district than in a competitive one. And because there are gerrymander-proof elections, like for state-wide office or Senate, you can account for the overall political tilt of the state. Unfortunately, I think that the justices are concerned that the subtleties of statistics will be lost on the majority of voters, which would compromise the political legitimacy of any judicial evaluation. I gather that the plaintiffs backed away from the statistics, but that leaves the overall problem of devising a workable judicial solution.

    Alas, because an end to the pernicious practice would be immensely beneficial to the governance of our own state.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recommended Posts

  • There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This Timing (3)
  • Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid Primaries (2)
  • Promises made, promises kept (2)
  • IRA passes 51- 50! (1)
  • Real “Center” is Economically Nationalist/Culturally Moderate (1)

Recent User Posts

Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid Primaries

August 12, 2022 By jconway 1 Comment

There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This Timing

August 10, 2022 By terrymcginty 8 Comments

Site issue: Unable to reply to comments

August 10, 2022 By SomervilleTom 2 Comments

Why do PUKES oppose $35 insulin for diabetics with private insurance?

August 8, 2022 By fredrichlariccia 3 Comments

Promises made, promises kept

August 8, 2022 By fredrichlariccia Leave a Comment

Schedule F

August 7, 2022 By johntmay 4 Comments

Recent Comments

  • SomervilleTom on Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid PrimariesI appreciate you writing this diary. This primary seems…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingKLEPTOCRAT GRIFTERINO is not the VICTIM; he's the PERPET…
  • Christopher on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingRepublicans: How dare Merrick Garland politicize the DOJ…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingThe Court has just given Trump until 3 pm tomorrow to ap…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingAG Garland just announced the search warrant has been un…
  • johntmay on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingI would not be surprised at all to learn that Trump deli…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingCould it also mean that KARM-A-LAGO might want to divert…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

framsource FraminghamSource @framsource ·
42m

PHOTOS: Sousa Campaigns at #Framingham Concert https://framinghamsource.com/index.php/2022/08/13/photos-sousa-campaigns-at-framingham-concert/
@SousafortheCity @SousaforRep @NASRCC_UBC
#Mapoli #Frampoli

Reply on Twitter 1558524313598365697 Retweet on Twitter 1558524313598365697 Like on Twitter 1558524313598365697 Twitter 1558524313598365697
headlineoptics Headline Optics @headlineoptics ·
42m

New behavioral-health centers to serve Arlington in ’23 – http://YourArlington.com https://www.masspolicyreport.com/2022/08/13/new-behavioral-health-centers-to-serve-arlington-in-23-yourarlington-com/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter @masspolicy #MApoli #Massachusetts

Reply on Twitter 1558524305687752704 Retweet on Twitter 1558524305687752704 Like on Twitter 1558524305687752704 Twitter 1558524305687752704
vets4jake Vets4Jake @vets4jake ·
47m

Thank you, @TommyVitolo, for your work this legislative session to protect our #Veterans and their families, as well as your support for those who currently wear the uniform. #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1558523001678794757 Retweet on Twitter 1558523001678794757 Like on Twitter 1558523001678794757 Twitter 1558523001678794757
rwwatchma Trump's election fraud hoax undermines democracy @rwwatchma ·
51m

'He betrayed America': GOPer @SenMikeLee buried by @SteveSchmidtSES for obedience to Trump 'above all' https://www.rawstory.com/mike-lee-trump-2657859241/ @MittRomney #mapoli #utpol

Conservatives used to say they cared about 1⃣rule of law2⃣ institutions of democracy 3⃣and protecting our national security?

Reply on Twitter 1558521999118553089 Retweet on Twitter 1558521999118553089 Like on Twitter 1558521999118553089 Twitter 1558521999118553089
cdempc Chris Dempsey @cdempc ·
58m

#TeamDempsey out in Weymouth today! Honored to have the support of these amazing Dem activists, including Rebecca and Kathy. #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1558520256775208962 Retweet on Twitter 1558520256775208962 2 Like on Twitter 1558520256775208962 1 Twitter 1558520256775208962
moiety_actual moiety.(m)eth ♡ 🇺🇦 @moiety_actual ·
1h

[ugly-weeps in transportation policy]
#mapoli #bospoli

AI-generated street transformations @betterstreetsai

Storrow Drive (Boston, Massachusetts)

Reply on Twitter 1558518609231728644 Retweet on Twitter 1558518609231728644 Like on Twitter 1558518609231728644 1 Twitter 1558518609231728644
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2022 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.