Gerrymandering is a serious problem, but the efficiency gap is not the answer. Mathematicians at Tufts are developing a measure based on geographical compactness that leads to districts that both look better and are fairer. See https://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/resources/
8
To me, the solution is simple. We use computers to draw horizontal lines across a state to divide it into the required number of districts. Legislators are allowed to move lines by +/- a few miles, to keep neighborhoods together.
Then - in ten years, draw the lines vertically.
No gerrymandering possible. simple. efficient.
Then - in ten years, draw the lines vertically.
No gerrymandering possible. simple. efficient.
9
This only became a pressing national issue when it started benefitting Republicans.
1
Citizens United and its related SCOTUS decision in 2010 have made this issue more critical than ever. The Koch donor network put enormous sums of big money and dark money into state races in Wisconsin and North Carolina (see Art Pope), then hired outside consultants to help rig the districts. Democracy, this isn't.
10
There needs to be an algorithm to determine congressional districts and state legislative districts that draws boundaries based on existing lower level political boundaries (counties, cities, towns, etc.).
Then let the chips fall where they may.
Might require a constitutional amendment. Having an algorithm embedded in the constitution would bring it into the digital age.
Then let the chips fall where they may.
Might require a constitutional amendment. Having an algorithm embedded in the constitution would bring it into the digital age.
2
Why doesn't the SCOTUS consult the algorithm developed by Wendy Cho of Univ of Illinois that ascertains whether a district has been gerrymandered? Seems like a statistically sound place to start.
8
But you guys claim to be the intellectuals! How is Reid's nuclear option working for you?
1
Yeah...Republicans invented gerrymandering, right? It's hilarious how Democrats exploit something for decades and see nothing wrong with it, but the second Republicans become better at it, it's evil incarnate and should be outlawed. #Hypocrites.
2
How about "Pivotal Moment for Democracy"?... you just added fuel to the fire by this thoughtless headline
4
After Citizens United it is hard to consider the Court unpolitical. Congress blithely refuses to investigate a President who may be deeply beholden to a foreign government. Flynn was fired--not because he was an undeclared agent for two foreign countries (Trump was ok with that)--but because he lied to Pence. Yet the lies of our President to us including explicitly to win the election is just fine with Congress, our only bulwark against a corrupt President.
In the recent Supreme Court election, Congress changed the rules rather than find an acceptable candidate. The House is now intent on passing a HealthCare Bill which will provide neither health nor care for many states (due to gerrymandered districts among other reasons) for the PRIMARY purpose of wealthy tax cuts, not healthcare.
1/2 US births, 1/4 US children, almost 2/3 nursing home care is provided by Medicaid--these are the people Congress wishes to rob for tax cuts to the wealthy; Congress now uses voters to legislate for its donors.
In short, our government has been co-opted by money throughout. Our President is openly profiteering by his office as is his daughter. We have no checks and balances that remain unsullied.
In this case, by the statement of the drafter of the gerrymandered map--districting has been done to keep a political party in power and to explicitly disallow fair voter representation. Do I think the Court can find a way to support their Party? Yes.
In the recent Supreme Court election, Congress changed the rules rather than find an acceptable candidate. The House is now intent on passing a HealthCare Bill which will provide neither health nor care for many states (due to gerrymandered districts among other reasons) for the PRIMARY purpose of wealthy tax cuts, not healthcare.
1/2 US births, 1/4 US children, almost 2/3 nursing home care is provided by Medicaid--these are the people Congress wishes to rob for tax cuts to the wealthy; Congress now uses voters to legislate for its donors.
In short, our government has been co-opted by money throughout. Our President is openly profiteering by his office as is his daughter. We have no checks and balances that remain unsullied.
In this case, by the statement of the drafter of the gerrymandered map--districting has been done to keep a political party in power and to explicitly disallow fair voter representation. Do I think the Court can find a way to support their Party? Yes.
10
It is true that in some states it may be difficult to correct gerrymandering because Democrats tend to live in cities and this results in de facto "packing" of a district. However there is a way to address this: have larger districts with several representatives elected per district.. For example, imagine a larger district electing 3 representatives to the U.S. Congress. If the population were 60% red and 40%, there would end up being 2 Republican representatives and 1 Democratic Representative elected. In 1967 the U.S. congress passed the Uniform Congressional District Act which mandates that most representatives be elected from single-member-districts. If this were changed to allow multi-member districts, there would be fairer and more proportional results reflecting the actual make up of the district resulting in more balanced representation. Independent non-partisan redistricting commissions and multi-member districts would go a long way to solving the problem of gerrymandering.
there is only one way to deal with this problem: that is to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians who have an obvious conflict of interest and no shame in applying it. America needs more NON-partisan as opposed to BI-partisan institutions to protect the public interest. The problem for America today is to find people of integrity and honesty who are seen by a very sceptical and distrustful public as being non-partisan. Your deliberate politicisation of the judiciary essentially rules that out as one option. America is reaping what is has sown.
7
Our Republican Congressman does not even respond to his constituents because his district has been so gerrymandered that a monkey would win over any Democrat candidate. We no longer have representation in our district. We must reform our system to have real competition or we risk losing our democracy.
5
"But while racial or ethnic gerrymanders can be statistically measured — a Latino remains a Latino from election to election — judges have struggled to identify overly partisan districts, knowing voter sentiments can quickly change"
This is the essential point - a voter can and often does vote outside party lines, and that can change from election to election, or even from race to race within an election. I would like to believe that people vote for the person, not the party, and that therefore the concept of partisan gerrymandering is less than acute.
However, the entire argument could be made moot if the concept of election districts themselves were abolished. My suggestion is to determine how many voters a representative represents, by dividing the number of voters by the number of representatives. Then anyone who receives that many votes represents those people who voted for him. If not enough representatives receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote getters would be selected until the slate is filled.
This way, a representative only represents people who want him, and people know that their voice is represented by their representative. The fact that someone lives near me does not have much influence on the level of agreement with my political views, so it should not be the determining factor in who represents me.
This is the essential point - a voter can and often does vote outside party lines, and that can change from election to election, or even from race to race within an election. I would like to believe that people vote for the person, not the party, and that therefore the concept of partisan gerrymandering is less than acute.
However, the entire argument could be made moot if the concept of election districts themselves were abolished. My suggestion is to determine how many voters a representative represents, by dividing the number of voters by the number of representatives. Then anyone who receives that many votes represents those people who voted for him. If not enough representatives receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote getters would be selected until the slate is filled.
This way, a representative only represents people who want him, and people know that their voice is represented by their representative. The fact that someone lives near me does not have much influence on the level of agreement with my political views, so it should not be the determining factor in who represents me.
1
Really, does anyone expect Gorsuch to vote as a judge or an arch reactionary Republican? It's a rhetorical questions.Yes this one squarely is on Justice Kennedy.
But watch this and watch what Gorsuch does and if he does what he is most likely to do then he will be the final proof that the SCOTUS it no longer a court or anything so much as resembling a court. It has become the American House of Lords, a third house of the Congress with more legislative power than the other two combined.
The only way to change that is to term limit justices by creating a mandatory retirement age of 70 for all federal judges, which would produce the turnover that would reduce the life and death stakes in SCOTUS appointments, which now are literally life and death as in the present unspoken death watch over two liberal members of the court.
Yes I just spoke the unspoken it and everyone knows it is happening and everyone understands the consequences.
Forcing justices to retire at 70 would allow the court to return to being a court and not the most partisan battlefield in our fractured politics; and to being a court not a legislative chamber lording its pretentious power over the nation.
But watch this and watch what Gorsuch does and if he does what he is most likely to do then he will be the final proof that the SCOTUS it no longer a court or anything so much as resembling a court. It has become the American House of Lords, a third house of the Congress with more legislative power than the other two combined.
The only way to change that is to term limit justices by creating a mandatory retirement age of 70 for all federal judges, which would produce the turnover that would reduce the life and death stakes in SCOTUS appointments, which now are literally life and death as in the present unspoken death watch over two liberal members of the court.
Yes I just spoke the unspoken it and everyone knows it is happening and everyone understands the consequences.
Forcing justices to retire at 70 would allow the court to return to being a court and not the most partisan battlefield in our fractured politics; and to being a court not a legislative chamber lording its pretentious power over the nation.
8
Need to put some statisticians on the job - to create district boundaries with random distributions of dems & reps. Some districts would end up favoring dems, some reps and most would favor neither. The biggest problem would be to get political parties to buy-in. Good luck with that.
1
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering. Now that the SC has a conserative, thank goodness, majority, the problem will be solved. Thank you.
2
Gerrymandering leads to: one person, one vote, one time.
1
There is a reason that the Supremes will never "solve" partisan jerrymandering and that is that there is a concept far older and far stronger than any logic the Supreme Court could muster.
To the victor go the spoils! No Democrat (or Republican) is willing to give up this principle..... at least not when they are on top. Nor should they.
To the victor go the spoils! No Democrat (or Republican) is willing to give up this principle..... at least not when they are on top. Nor should they.
1
This explains the rush to get Gorsuch* confirmed. Republicans can cheat with impunity once gerrymandering gets the SC blessing. I would like to hope that they realize this a fundamental violation is equal rights but then I remember citizens united.
2
He won't help them at all on this issue.
1
Gerrymandering is the number one reason politics has become so polarized. Why not draw districts with a computer program. No more than four sides. Each side has to be with in a certain ratio to the other 3. Every ten years start from a different compass direction. N to s,s to n,e to w,w to east.
9
Republicans rarely win on the issues. Instead, they try to game the system by gerrymandering, voter suppression/roll purges, debt-limit threats, alternative facts, fear-mongering, etc. When will the real patriots on SCOTUS emerge?
10
Says the party that uses a laundry list of "ists" and "phobes" as a substitute for any rational debate....
1
Like the nuclear option in judges (Dems were the first to filibuster judges, see Miguel Estrada), they only object when it deployed against them. To see what they would do if they could, just look at the electoral process in California. That, I believe, says it all,
"Republicans can rarely win on issues." Really? Seems to me they resoundingly in 2016. Republican win when common sense prevails over nonsense. The 2016 defeat of the Democrats was a tremendous victory of common sense, not gerrymandering, as the vast majority voters wo are interested in serious things, namely, law and order, prevailed. Gerrymandering is not needed when the election is about common sense.
1
Voting is the cornerstone of democracy and gerrymandering only serves to undermine the legitimacy of elections. For that reason the Supreme Court must rule to limit if not eliminate gerrymandering
8
There seem to be only one way out of this and that is to do what some European countries do with multiple parties and proportional representation. Racine and Kenosha Counties in Wisconsin are a good example Run the districts north and south and you have one Very Dem district and one Very Rep district. You run the districts east and west and you have two competitive districts that lean Dem. Yes how to fairly draw the line. A form of proportional representation removes the challenge of WHERE people live and establishes FAIR representation. Maybe it is time to think outside the box but that would mean that some group will see themselves giving up POWER and we all know how that works. Peace
2
I hope they will call on people like math Professor Moon Duchin (Tufts University) who have developed algorithms based on metric geometry to detect gerrymandering. She even runs summer camps to train people to use those algorithms. Just google 'Moon Duchin gerrymandering' to find plenty of resources. Math has come a long way to properly define and measure what constitutes gerrymandering. Let's take advantage of this scientific advances.
3
Politicians elected in gerrymandered districts not only have no incentive to seek compromise legislative solutions. They have a positive incentive NOT to do so. "Statesmen" who put the public interest over their party's commands know to expect primary challenges from extremists within their own party, usually heavily financed by out-of-state dark money. Big money doesn't flow to practical sensible politicians; it flows to party zealots. This combination is destroying our country. Hopefully egghead justices can effectively address a cancer that is as plain as the nose on your face, rather philosophize about the difficulty of defining the line after which the nose becomes an ear, or a toe. There are already constructive bi-partisan models in a few states that must be replicated, but it will never happen without judicial mandate.
4
This shouldn't be difficult: any redistricting should be so that in the most recent election the seats would have been divided according to the popular vote.
Districts are meant as an extra to give more voice to regional interests. But this gerrymandering does the opposite: by creating safe seats it allows both parties to field extremists that wouldn't have a chance in a competitive election.
Districts are meant as an extra to give more voice to regional interests. But this gerrymandering does the opposite: by creating safe seats it allows both parties to field extremists that wouldn't have a chance in a competitive election.
4
There is another and more easily determined manner in which to challenge district lines: look for the splitting of contiguous areas that have similar interests and needs. I worked for a NYC Member of Congress who was repeatedly elected from a Manhattan district despite a 3-2 party registration disadvantage. New lines removed the strength of his Manhattan area, and jumped the East River to substitute sections of Brooklyn and Queens, which then had a significantly different populace and, despite being part of the same city, often had different needs and wants. As expected, he lost the following election.
2
Is it possible that the whole tradition of geographically defined districts is obsolete, and that voting at large is the better solution, particularly if such voting is linked to instituting mandatory voting?
3
I would like to take exception to one statement in this article:
"Partly because of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymanders based on race are flatly ill".
The Department of Justice has promoted and required so-called "Minority-Majority" districts in those states under its control as a results of the VR Act. This has led to frequent geographical abominations.
Even when the DoJ has not been directly involved, some states have engineered weirdly shaped districts that dismember existing cities...all in the name of race. One egregious example is the 7th Massachusetts Congressional District.
Massachusetts is controlled by Democrats, who have all senate and congressional seats and who completely dominate the state legislature. They could have abandoned gerrymandering at any time, but Democrats like it when it serves their purposes.
"Partly because of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymanders based on race are flatly ill".
The Department of Justice has promoted and required so-called "Minority-Majority" districts in those states under its control as a results of the VR Act. This has led to frequent geographical abominations.
Even when the DoJ has not been directly involved, some states have engineered weirdly shaped districts that dismember existing cities...all in the name of race. One egregious example is the 7th Massachusetts Congressional District.
Massachusetts is controlled by Democrats, who have all senate and congressional seats and who completely dominate the state legislature. They could have abandoned gerrymandering at any time, but Democrats like it when it serves their purposes.
1
“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,”
Pretty discouraging criteria. I guess that judge is in agreement with the conservative principle that there's no requirement fir fairness.
Pretty discouraging criteria. I guess that judge is in agreement with the conservative principle that there's no requirement fir fairness.
The leftist bias of the NYT shows plainly in this article, though indeed the focus is on Wisconsin. Let us look at some Democrat Gerrymandering:
The Georgia seat recently held by Tom Price was Gerrymandered around 1990 to try to get rid of Newt Gingrich. Didn't work. But look at the district now, with primary just finished. Very close Dem/Rep. But why do the Democrats have to run a candidate who doesn't even live in the district?
Colorado...1990 grabbed part of Arapahoe County, to the south side of Denver, and placed it into CD 1 (mostly Denver city), solidly Democrat and the seat of Pat Schroeder and later Diana DeGette. That took Republican votes away from CD 6, mostly Arapahoe County. In 2010, Democrats Gerrymandered CD 6 to include northern portions of Aurora, highly Democrat, in an attempt get rid of Republican congressman Mike Coffman. Coffman is still in, though indeed the district is "competitive," but Coffman does his best to represent all of his constituents. And in one of those two year elections, Democrats brought in a candidate who really lived in Denver, not CD 6.
Maryland: Gerrymandering by Democrats (lawsuit noted) of CD 8 and CD 6 cost long serving moderate Congresswoman Connie Morella her seat.
So, NYT, please try to edit your stories a bit more towards the center.
The Georgia seat recently held by Tom Price was Gerrymandered around 1990 to try to get rid of Newt Gingrich. Didn't work. But look at the district now, with primary just finished. Very close Dem/Rep. But why do the Democrats have to run a candidate who doesn't even live in the district?
Colorado...1990 grabbed part of Arapahoe County, to the south side of Denver, and placed it into CD 1 (mostly Denver city), solidly Democrat and the seat of Pat Schroeder and later Diana DeGette. That took Republican votes away from CD 6, mostly Arapahoe County. In 2010, Democrats Gerrymandered CD 6 to include northern portions of Aurora, highly Democrat, in an attempt get rid of Republican congressman Mike Coffman. Coffman is still in, though indeed the district is "competitive," but Coffman does his best to represent all of his constituents. And in one of those two year elections, Democrats brought in a candidate who really lived in Denver, not CD 6.
Maryland: Gerrymandering by Democrats (lawsuit noted) of CD 8 and CD 6 cost long serving moderate Congresswoman Connie Morella her seat.
So, NYT, please try to edit your stories a bit more towards the center.
This is a true test for our country. In Ohio we have experienced majorities voting democrat in campaigns within our state - but because of how districts are drawn we have majority rule by republicans. It is hard to be excited or confident about the political gamesmanship governing our country (& state) at this time.
1
The Constitution doesn't require the drawing of Congressional districts at all. Why not allow voting by party, similar to a parliamentary system? Seats could be apportioned to the parties in proportion to their state-wide votes. This would at least insure no systemic inequity to one party, and would occasionally allow a third party to have a seat. Plus, name recognition would cease to be a guarantee of re-election. It might also reduce the incidence of pork-barrel projects, since reps wouldn't serve such narrow communities.
5
The court should reject partisan gerrymanders such as those in Wisconsin and Texas. But let's be clear--gerrymanders are much more frequently rear-guard actions by political factions that recognize their diminishing power. Refusing to implement better democracy by striking down partisan gerrymandering will delay, but not prevent change.
1
For the record, there are 2 districts in RI, so gerrymandering would be ... difficult. And they've been the same (pretty much) for 40+ years. So I doubt the the political dominance of the Democrats has much to do with gerrymandering. Glad those are not my lawyers. (See paragraph 26 or so.) Also their argument about the 14th amendment is probably not going to work (considering they probably mean the 15th amendment but anyway) as it was written during the Reconstruction to protect racial minorities-- the intent is pretty plain. I don't see the SCOTUS looking at it any other way.
The best (if not currently most likely) Constitutional remedy is merely that Congress make gerrymandering explicitly illegal using its power under Article I section 4. Not holding my breath.
Or we could just stop having two parties, which is possible.
The best (if not currently most likely) Constitutional remedy is merely that Congress make gerrymandering explicitly illegal using its power under Article I section 4. Not holding my breath.
Or we could just stop having two parties, which is possible.
1
A gerrymandered democracy is not a democracy. There are those who would like to stop or turn back democratic ideals and the mechanisms by which democracy is made real, functional. Mostly, they reside in the Republican party, the party that does it's very best to represent the mega-rich and the merchant class across America against the interests of non-wealthy citizens.
Here is a fundamental fact of life: unless something important, something central to social or personal existence, is not being protected and moved forward, it is actually dying, perhaps a slow death, but nonetheless dying. This is the current state of democracy in America.
At the time of our national founding, there were great questions about democracy and whether citizens could think about, and vote for, anything but their narrow self interests. Those questions remain, but, over the last 240+ years, democracy has been advanced and thus strengthened.
We believe in democracy in America or we believe in nothing else. There can be no turning back. "The people" are not always right, but we no beyond a doubt that the rule by the few is consistently wrong and creates an internal, socially diseased society which cannot stand, but rather rots from within.
Gerrymandering is a way to defeat the functioning of democracy. If the so called wise men and women on the Supreme Court cannot see this, they are blind to fact and all reason.
Here is a fundamental fact of life: unless something important, something central to social or personal existence, is not being protected and moved forward, it is actually dying, perhaps a slow death, but nonetheless dying. This is the current state of democracy in America.
At the time of our national founding, there were great questions about democracy and whether citizens could think about, and vote for, anything but their narrow self interests. Those questions remain, but, over the last 240+ years, democracy has been advanced and thus strengthened.
We believe in democracy in America or we believe in nothing else. There can be no turning back. "The people" are not always right, but we no beyond a doubt that the rule by the few is consistently wrong and creates an internal, socially diseased society which cannot stand, but rather rots from within.
Gerrymandering is a way to defeat the functioning of democracy. If the so called wise men and women on the Supreme Court cannot see this, they are blind to fact and all reason.
4
This site tells you if your congressional district is likely gerrymandered or not: ismydistrictgerrymandered.com
Both parties are also responsible for gerrymandering districts, not just Republicans. All voters should care about gerrymandering, even if your district is not gerrymandered (or if it is but you vote for the party responsible for it!).
Both parties are also responsible for gerrymandering districts, not just Republicans. All voters should care about gerrymandering, even if your district is not gerrymandered (or if it is but you vote for the party responsible for it!).
1
The Republicans in Kansas have attempted to gerrymander the state even though they are in the majority in almost every district. Instead of acting in the interest of we voters, they make themselves unbeatable. Once they think they are unbeatable, then they are free at both the national and state level to ignore the will of the voters.
Kansas has always been a Republican state, but there are differences in Kansas Republicans. We have seen a move towards more moderation in our state since Governor Sam Brownback and his cronies have been ruining our state since he was elected. Most Kansas abhor the antics of Brownback even though he has been elected twice.
When it looks like the Republicans are cheating, they usually are. Our Secretary of State, Kris Kobach has engineered the voting laws and rules to favor rich, white people. Trust me, Kansans of all parlties are offended by that conduct. The sooner we can rid our state of Republicans who think they are above public opinion about their actions, the better. And that includes our representatives in Washington.
Kansas has always been a Republican state, but there are differences in Kansas Republicans. We have seen a move towards more moderation in our state since Governor Sam Brownback and his cronies have been ruining our state since he was elected. Most Kansas abhor the antics of Brownback even though he has been elected twice.
When it looks like the Republicans are cheating, they usually are. Our Secretary of State, Kris Kobach has engineered the voting laws and rules to favor rich, white people. Trust me, Kansans of all parlties are offended by that conduct. The sooner we can rid our state of Republicans who think they are above public opinion about their actions, the better. And that includes our representatives in Washington.
Mathematicians are organizing a "Geometry of Redistricting" summer school with social scientists and communicators August 7-11, 2017 at Tufts University, with minicourses to discuss the legal, historical, civil rights, and mathematical aspects of redistricting, and with training for future expert witnesses. Many of the events are open to the public: anyone interested in getting involved can visit https://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/
1
It is so nice to see the stately Hillary Clinton in the background portrait painting! She outshines the three riffraff characters that are pretending to be those whose opinion counts! It doesn't!
2
Strange that when democrats were in control gerrymandering was ok. One look at the Georgia 6th shows how democrats tried to gerrymand Neet Gingrich out of a seat. Also let's not forget that Rlridge Gerry was a progressive member of the fore runner of today's democrat party. What goes around come around. Strange also that there are 40 odd minority majority districts designed for a minority, like the Guam will tip over, Hank Johnson in Georgia. Blacks in Georgia are currently politicking for yet another majority minority district. Don't try to pass off these districts as color blind
When you 60% of the seats you have a 20% margin. When you achieve a 20% majority of victory and actually have a minority of voters that's not representative democracy.
We already have a grossly un democratic Senate where Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas have more power than New York and California.
So really did McConnell let the American people pick Gorsuch?
No.
Almost 3 million more Americans wanted Clinton not Trump to decide.
So I guess he wasn't really interested in what we thought. In fact Democratic Senators represent more Americans than Republican Senators.
*
The Electoral College is based on population not actual voters.
We already have a grossly un democratic Senate where Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas have more power than New York and California.
So really did McConnell let the American people pick Gorsuch?
No.
Almost 3 million more Americans wanted Clinton not Trump to decide.
So I guess he wasn't really interested in what we thought. In fact Democratic Senators represent more Americans than Republican Senators.
*
The Electoral College is based on population not actual voters.
1
Let us assume (though it's no slam-dunk) that SCOTUS finds extreme political gerrymandering illegal. Do Democrats have candidates who can win in newly drawn fair fight districts for state legislature? In ruby red states?
I propose that unless Keith Ellison, Sen. Sanders and Rep. Cummings among others, are listened to, the answer is clearly no. It's either big tent at the Democrat's ball or it's activists with ideological purity tests worthy of a fundamentalist's fight against dancing and booze nixing candidates who dare to deviate. Either the progressives stay an angry minority in their bi-coastal redoubt, or they become a 50 state party. Which is it, Democrats, for the end of gerrymandering will mean nothing if every Dem is expected to be a hard left clone.
I propose that unless Keith Ellison, Sen. Sanders and Rep. Cummings among others, are listened to, the answer is clearly no. It's either big tent at the Democrat's ball or it's activists with ideological purity tests worthy of a fundamentalist's fight against dancing and booze nixing candidates who dare to deviate. Either the progressives stay an angry minority in their bi-coastal redoubt, or they become a 50 state party. Which is it, Democrats, for the end of gerrymandering will mean nothing if every Dem is expected to be a hard left clone.
4
Georgia just gerrymandered several district boundaries last month, in spite of it not being a census year. The redistricting shifted black voters out and white voters in to shore up some Republican areas that were beginning to look like swing districts. It was completely racial gerrymandering. House Bill 515 was introduced with no preliminary warning including to politicians affected and passed within two days in the Republican House. It's been tabled in the State Senate for now because it is widely considered to be a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The zombie confederacy keeps rising.
7
An important issue in this is not just that gerrymandering helps Republicans win elections, it further drives their party to the right -- When seats are so firmly safe for Republicans, more power shifts to voters and groups that are more radically right wing. If Republicans had to win some votes from people who were centrist, or liberal Republicans, they couldn't act so ridiculously reactionary. But the way things are now they know once they win over the super conservative right wing, they have nothing to fear except acting too reasonably.
5
I hope in one or more subsequent articles NYT goes more deeply into the redistricting/gerrymander case in Wisconsin. The history, which goes back to 2011 is telling. One example. In 2012, Republican state assembly members deleted thousands of computer files related to redistricting after a three-judge federal panel ordered the state to provide all relevant files. That was only one piece of an ongoing effort of Republican assembly members to hide evidence that laid bare their attentions to manipulate districts in their favor.
4
Gerrymandering provides safe districts for both parties, and this allows those in the districts to cast "Republican" votes or "Democratic" votes. Sure, the party in power and with the most gerrymandered districts wants to keep things the way they are.
Even though gerrymandering might look suspicious from the point of view of making public policy, when one considers that governors, US Senators and the president are beyond the reach of gerrymandering, it might well be that gerrymandering has no adverse effects on public policy.
Even though gerrymandering might look suspicious from the point of view of making public policy, when one considers that governors, US Senators and the president are beyond the reach of gerrymandering, it might well be that gerrymandering has no adverse effects on public policy.
Gerrymandering, by any political party, represents the theft of representation by one group in favor of another. It is a form of vote theft. By smashing together, or weaving in weird patterns, voters who favor one party, the votes of what then become the minority in a given House district are crossed out, nullified.
We cannot rest until this insult to democracy is ripped from existence and shown for what it is, the open and heretofore lawful theft of democracy.
Here in Maryland, we have a slate of representatives in Congress who are almost exclusively Democrats. The county where I live, Montgomery, had for years elected a Republican woman to the House. In turn, the western part of the state, more rural and more conservative, had a hard right congressman. The districts were manipulated by "sharing" democratic voters with districts which had previously had an insufficient number to elect a Democrat. So, two previously Republican seats turned to the Democrats.
Because I would not personally support far right candidates, does that mean I celebrate this trickery? No. If it is wrong for the Republicans to play these games, it is equally, or more, wrong for the Democrats, who say they believe in democracy and govt., to play these games.
NO POLITICAL PARTY should ever have control of how House districts are drawn. Getting this practice overturned is just one of many steps necessary to protect, extend and expand the functioning of democracy in America.
We cannot rest until this insult to democracy is ripped from existence and shown for what it is, the open and heretofore lawful theft of democracy.
Here in Maryland, we have a slate of representatives in Congress who are almost exclusively Democrats. The county where I live, Montgomery, had for years elected a Republican woman to the House. In turn, the western part of the state, more rural and more conservative, had a hard right congressman. The districts were manipulated by "sharing" democratic voters with districts which had previously had an insufficient number to elect a Democrat. So, two previously Republican seats turned to the Democrats.
Because I would not personally support far right candidates, does that mean I celebrate this trickery? No. If it is wrong for the Republicans to play these games, it is equally, or more, wrong for the Democrats, who say they believe in democracy and govt., to play these games.
NO POLITICAL PARTY should ever have control of how House districts are drawn. Getting this practice overturned is just one of many steps necessary to protect, extend and expand the functioning of democracy in America.
5
I guess the Republican majority on the Supreme Court will solidify the hold of both Houses for their friends when they decide there is nothing wrong with fixing elections. So until 2060, 2070 and even further, American will be run by a ONE party system. Good luck with that, I will be dead by then.
6
According to the article, "Partly because of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymanders based on race are flatly illegal, but ones based on partisan intent remain in limbo." However, Section Two decrees that minorities must be afforded equal opportunity to participate in elections and “elect candidates of their choice.” The Justice Department has interpreted this to mean that that states and local jurisdictions must create voting districts in which African Americans or Hispanics voters are a majority. For example, a federal district court recently ordered Texas to redraw its voting district because it didn’t gerrymander enough Hispanic voting districts. According to federal courts, the law of the land doesn't forbid ethnic and racial gerrymandering; it requires racial and ethnic gerrymandering.
4
The lines are crossed when human beings draw the districts. In the age of precision GPS, how is that we cannot simply run a state through an algorithm that draws perfectly balanced districts using simple geometric shapes?
You are not as different from the rest of the county as Congressional representatives would have you believe. But gerrymandering leads to extreme polarization whereby Congressional seats are so safe that only the MOST extreme scandals lead to an ouster. Everything about this needs to be fixed.
You are not as different from the rest of the county as Congressional representatives would have you believe. But gerrymandering leads to extreme polarization whereby Congressional seats are so safe that only the MOST extreme scandals lead to an ouster. Everything about this needs to be fixed.
3
Republicans would benefit if voting districts determine only by population density. The reason is that Democratic voters are clustered in high-density urban voting districts while Republican voters are more evenly dispersed throughout suburban and rural voting districts. As a result, Democrats win urban districts by overwhelming margins while Republican win suburban, small town and rural districts by smaller margins. There are more suburban, small town and rural districts than urban districts than high-density urban districts. This is why Republicans control the House of Representatives and most state legislatures.
1
You're overlooking packing and cracking. Look no further than Austin for an example of this at its worst. In 2003, Republicans started to split up Congressional District 10 from 1 solidly democratic district into 5 districts, 4 of which were conservative. Austin now belongs in districts that run from San Antonio to Fort Worth to Houston. They've taken what should be at least 2-3 democratic districts and watered them down to just one. And that one strongly democratic district that we're left with was recently found to violate the voting rights act because it's been "packed" with minorities.
2
It can't be said frequently enough: "Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, and hold the presidency despite having lost the popular vote by significant majorities in each case."
7
Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, and hold the presidency despite having lost the popular vote by significant majorities in each case."
=====================
This is not really true. Republican congressional candidates got more total votes than Democrats in 2016. Democrat senate candidates got more total votes than Republicans in 2016, but this was only due to the fact that no Republican was allowed to run for Senate in California. Due to its open primary system, both candidates were Democrats. If a Republican had been allowed to run and done as well as Trump in California, this plurality would have been wiped out.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-cong...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/the-most-bogus...
=====================
This is not really true. Republican congressional candidates got more total votes than Democrats in 2016. Democrat senate candidates got more total votes than Republicans in 2016, but this was only due to the fact that no Republican was allowed to run for Senate in California. Due to its open primary system, both candidates were Democrats. If a Republican had been allowed to run and done as well as Trump in California, this plurality would have been wiped out.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-cong...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/the-most-bogus...
2
If we are being honest with ourselves, Gerrymandering remains a subjective term. What one side considers gerrymandering another will not. And all sides can present evidence to support their claim while rebutting others.
What can't be argued is that when In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that federal & state legislative districts had to contain approximately the same number of people. Since 1962, US population has grown almost 77% yet the number of districts has remained the same.
The issue isn't how the districts are drawn, it is that the districts are all way too big and we are trying to have one person represent an increasing number of people. It's time to remember that the House used to grow with population until Congress set its size in 1911. Population has tripled since then so it's time for Congress to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act and set a new size for the House based on our larger population.
What can't be argued is that when In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that federal & state legislative districts had to contain approximately the same number of people. Since 1962, US population has grown almost 77% yet the number of districts has remained the same.
The issue isn't how the districts are drawn, it is that the districts are all way too big and we are trying to have one person represent an increasing number of people. It's time to remember that the House used to grow with population until Congress set its size in 1911. Population has tripled since then so it's time for Congress to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act and set a new size for the House based on our larger population.
3
One person one vote. Gerrymandering is stealing. Oh yeah, it is the only way the fascist un-American Republican'ts can win. It is by stealing, lying, and cheating. Get rid of fascist Gorsuch (Stolen Election Stolen Seat) and get rid of the poll tax Electoral College.
Should've voted for President Hillary Clinton and the Dems instead.
Should've voted for President Hillary Clinton and the Dems instead.
3
"Experts disagree over how much gerrymandering has hurt Democrats. One prominent 2013 study mostly blamed geography, not partisanship, because Democrats tend to cluster in cities."
So? If that's the case, then what's needed is simply to create more districts in high-population cities, resulting in more representatives from those areas. Bottom line, here's what I -- and I think most Americans -- want. A system where, if more people vote for one party, *that is the party which wins.* This is not rocket science, people. More people vote Democrat than they do Republican, and yet Democrats are a dwindling minority in government. That's NOT OKAY.
So? If that's the case, then what's needed is simply to create more districts in high-population cities, resulting in more representatives from those areas. Bottom line, here's what I -- and I think most Americans -- want. A system where, if more people vote for one party, *that is the party which wins.* This is not rocket science, people. More people vote Democrat than they do Republican, and yet Democrats are a dwindling minority in government. That's NOT OKAY.
6
Generally, one votes for the candidate that most closely mirror's the voters belief. What you're suggesting is essentially a party line vote without regard to the values of the candidate. As a registered Republican, your premise would have forced me to vote against Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in 2008. Is that truly your belief, that party is all, and candidate be damned?
You're taking me too literally. What I mean is, more people vote for Democratic candidates than they do Republican candidates. Yet because of gerrymandering, more Republican candidates are in office. The majority of this country votes Democrat but the gerrymandered system produces a majority Republican government. That's not how a Democracy where one person = one vote is supposed to work.
1
I never understood why there would be a need for districting in the first place, which only leads to this winner-takes-it-all nonsense and extreme partisanship. Great for sports, bad for politics. What's wrong with a simple one person - one vote rule, where all seats are distributed proportionally by popular vote? What is holding you back?
2
"In Supreme Court cases in 1986, 2004 and 2006, justices variously called partisan gerrymanders illegitimate, seriously harmful, incompatible with democratic principles and “manipulation of the electorate.”
And the Justices were being kind. Knowingly attempting to bias the electoral process in one or another's favor is a traitorous act, and the perpetrators should be regarded as such.
And the Justices were being kind. Knowingly attempting to bias the electoral process in one or another's favor is a traitorous act, and the perpetrators should be regarded as such.
5
It seems to me that the only truly neutral algorithm is one which minimizes the total length of interior boundaries while maintaining equal population districts, say within 1/2 of one percent.
Obviously, a state's outer boundary is a constant so movement of a given precinct across such an optimized map would, even when "balanced" my moving a different precinct the other way, would ipso facto be for "political influence" reasons.
In all honesty, I don't give a rodent's hindquarters about "communities of interest". Yes, I'm a member of the "most privileged" community of interest, Euro-American men, but I certainly don't vote with most of them. That's why I don't care about preserving their power. There are Black Female Conservatives and White Male Greens; such people have LESS influence in a "communities of interest"-dominated politics, because they are in two mostly-incompatible "communities" simultaneously.
So draw the lines as neutrally as possible and let the scrum begin.
Obviously, a state's outer boundary is a constant so movement of a given precinct across such an optimized map would, even when "balanced" my moving a different precinct the other way, would ipso facto be for "political influence" reasons.
In all honesty, I don't give a rodent's hindquarters about "communities of interest". Yes, I'm a member of the "most privileged" community of interest, Euro-American men, but I certainly don't vote with most of them. That's why I don't care about preserving their power. There are Black Female Conservatives and White Male Greens; such people have LESS influence in a "communities of interest"-dominated politics, because they are in two mostly-incompatible "communities" simultaneously.
So draw the lines as neutrally as possible and let the scrum begin.
2
Gerrymandering destroys representative democracy -- representatives no longer have to recognize that they represent the people that did not vote for them as well as the ones that did. The founding fathers were opposed to parties for just this reason: Parties put their own good (power) ahead of the good of the country; gerrymandering is the means. If fair districting cannot be created, direct democracy will be needed to replace representative democracy. Technologically, that is approaching possibility, but it is not clear that that would be better for the country in the long run -- consider the fates of Athens and of Rome.
3
Federal courts would never approved at-large-elections because it would disadvantage minority candidates. The Justice Department and federal courts force states and cities to design voting districts to ensure African Americans and Hispanic candidates can elect candidates of their choice. For example, a federal court forced Texas to create more districts with Hispanic majorities following the 2010 Census, even though this required extensive gerrymandering.
1
Gerrymandering is bad for both parties. It installs "permanent" elected officials and promotes staying if office for long periods of time. This is the opposite of what the system should net which is citizens who serve for a limited time and then turn the seat over to someone else who brings a fresh perspective. Gerrymandering produces career politicians which is what has lead to our current gridlock.
4
The statistically modeled approach certainly got us into this mess, but it could now just as well get us out. If it can be demonstrated that the partisan distribution of representatives in a state deviates more than one seat or so from what the popular vote says it ought to have been, then it is on the face of it a partisan gerrymander and can be remodeled to be neutral for upcoming elections.
This would have been next to impossible before the advent of current tools, but now it ought to be pretty straightforward:
- draw a revised map (possibly pre-gerrymander);
- run the actual precinct-level totals through it (ideally for several elections) to simulate what the distribution of representatives would have been with the new map;
- repeat the above process until a reasonable correlation of popular vote and electoral results is achieved.
The Wisconsin example is such an egregious violation of one-man-one-vote that it calls out for action, which is now technically very feasible.
This would have been next to impossible before the advent of current tools, but now it ought to be pretty straightforward:
- draw a revised map (possibly pre-gerrymander);
- run the actual precinct-level totals through it (ideally for several elections) to simulate what the distribution of representatives would have been with the new map;
- repeat the above process until a reasonable correlation of popular vote and electoral results is achieved.
The Wisconsin example is such an egregious violation of one-man-one-vote that it calls out for action, which is now technically very feasible.
3
The states themselves are permanently gerrymandered election districts.
Maybe Congressional elections should be statewide, with one seat at stake per 750,000 people.
Maybe Congressional elections should be statewide, with one seat at stake per 750,000 people.
2
Why not just have an independent non-partisan body draw up electoral maps (like we do up here in Canada and what is done in most other democracies)?
5
Amen!
1
Why not just have an independent non-partisan body draw up electoral maps (like we do up here in Canada and what is done in most other democracies)?
====================
There is no such thing as "an independent non-partisan body" in this country.
California claims it has "an independent non-partisan body" to draw its districts, but somehow all the people on it who claim to be non-partisan turn out to be Democrats.
====================
There is no such thing as "an independent non-partisan body" in this country.
California claims it has "an independent non-partisan body" to draw its districts, but somehow all the people on it who claim to be non-partisan turn out to be Democrats.
Gerrymandering is bad for both political parties, even republicans who are warping districts in their favor. The AHCA was foiled by... republicans. Why would a representative compromise if their district only supports one team? It pushes political positions further and further to the fringes. There will be no compromise, there will be no democracy.
1
Seeing how the justices vote will sen the message, that America has become a stacked deck, or there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and The Constitution lives!
4
Let us do away with political parties and the electoral college!!
3
I will be following the work of Moon Duchin at Tufts and her Gerrymandering working group closely:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/can-geometry-root-out-gerrymandering/
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/can-geometry-root-out-gerrymandering/
The Republicans' win-at-any-cost strategy is destroying this country's principles. We have seen it replayed over and over again across the country.
If you can't win by ideas, then just steal the election, right?
If you can't win by ideas, then just steal the election, right?
8
Since gerrymandering essentially throws out the ideal of a local community or district voting for shared interests (instead packing particular political or party members together) then we could use computers to completely overturn the idea. Candidates would run on a state-wide basis, everyone would vote, then the computers could randomly assign this voter's vote to this "district" and that voter's vote to that district. As now, you would have as many districts as population demands, but with no likelihood of election engineering.
3
Perhaps California will again led the way. If not: Your vote does NOT count.
3
The definition of democracy is rule by majority vote. Since the year 2000, the Republicans have regularly lost the vote but won elections. Gerrymandering is but one tool in their bag of tricks to accomplish this new normalcy - our democracy is dead!
3
Before trump is done there won't be a need for voting. Michigan has suffered the same fate. Michigan districts have been re carved so they favor only republicans. As a result it has the worst legislature ever
6
Dude Wisconsin is pretty bad. Probably a tie.....
But either way, we need change in the political system and its structure. Otherwise most everyone loses.
But either way, we need change in the political system and its structure. Otherwise most everyone loses.
3
Supreme Court, you need to do the right thing and rule that the Wisconsin Gerrymander was illegal.
If not, you can say goodbye to America as you knew it, and those of who came of voting age prior to 2010 knew it.
Then overturn Citizens United in order that American can again be "for the people, by the people".
Make us proud to be Americans again.
If not, you can say goodbye to America as you knew it, and those of who came of voting age prior to 2010 knew it.
Then overturn Citizens United in order that American can again be "for the people, by the people".
Make us proud to be Americans again.
8
The Court should revert to simple geometry, tenth grade Level: πd
This is the formula for the circumference of a circle. With some of the gerrymandered districts, the circumference is probably ten times what it should be because of the complexity of the shape.
This is the formula for the circumference of a circle. With some of the gerrymandered districts, the circumference is probably ten times what it should be because of the complexity of the shape.
2
I'd also like to see them start to take interior angles into account as well. Some of the ridiculous polygons they've drawn up have well over a hundred changes in direction as you go around their perimeter. A square has only four. I don't see any reason why districts need much more, if any more, than four right angles to bound an area (not including run-ins with our irregularly drawn state borders of course).
1
The Voting Rights Act requires racial gerrymandering to ensure minority-majority districts.
1
It is probably safe to say that nearly all election districts are gerrymandered to favor whatever party happens to be in power. The only way to avoid this is to have historically based districts such as counties whose representatives would cast votes based on the population of that county. The same might be done in Washington with the abolition of the House and having only the Senate with proportional voting. No longer would Alaska with a population equal to that of Greater Flushing have as much power as a populous state. Yes, the Founding Fathers were wrong in their design of our government.
1
Simple enough test...when the GOP gets their way, they are guilty of gerrymandering. It's always the case with them...steal an election by hook or crook, get adversaries to help you, make it difficult for blacks and Latinos to vote, and bingo...you're a GOP winner.
4
Don't expect much support in the USSC, they too are part and parcel of the problem. Most divisive times in our country's history where party is more important than country.
3
I attended an event where Bill Bradley spoke on this topic several years ago. He advocated turning redistricting decisions over to independent commissions with a mandate to draw districts in a manner that produced as close to a 50/50 partisan split as possible. Bradley reasoned that most Americans are in the political center. But, gerrymandered districts are drawn to appeal to the extremes. If candidates had to run campaigns appealing to the center rather than the extremes, better government would result. Food for thought...
12
Gerrymandering must be outlawed. All of us should have our vote counted fairly and equitably. Our votes should not be diluted by gerrymandering. Both parties are guilty of abuses so reform and agreement on a fair method should appeal to all Americans.
1
All gerrymandering is a shameless power grab, no matter who does it. Gerrymandering puts party over people. It should be outlawed.
2
The United States of America, with representative government determined by legislative districts. Districts are shown to be arbitrary and not determined by boundaries outlined in the United States Constitution, but by state legislative actions which are inherently unequal in terms of demographic party affiliations.
Being that we are the "United States" with the number of Representatives determined by overall state populations, the idea of each state being a legislative entity no longer subdivided into districts should be seriously considered to negate the real and corrupt practices of Gerrymandering.
It is shown here that the practice of district manipulation is real and done by both primary parties.
The best way to assure the States remain "United" and still equitably represent their constituents free of any real or inadvertent political corruption is to make each state a district of it's own with the number of Representatives Constitutionally determined by the state's population, much like the Senators are chosen.
This would render our Congress truly representative of their respective state's populations.
Don't just manage corruption as it constantly reveals itself. Resolve the root of the problem once. This may require a Constitutional amendment, in which case the rigged legislatures probably won't ratify it. Hmmm? Then it would be up to the Supreme Court, would it not?
Being that we are the "United States" with the number of Representatives determined by overall state populations, the idea of each state being a legislative entity no longer subdivided into districts should be seriously considered to negate the real and corrupt practices of Gerrymandering.
It is shown here that the practice of district manipulation is real and done by both primary parties.
The best way to assure the States remain "United" and still equitably represent their constituents free of any real or inadvertent political corruption is to make each state a district of it's own with the number of Representatives Constitutionally determined by the state's population, much like the Senators are chosen.
This would render our Congress truly representative of their respective state's populations.
Don't just manage corruption as it constantly reveals itself. Resolve the root of the problem once. This may require a Constitutional amendment, in which case the rigged legislatures probably won't ratify it. Hmmm? Then it would be up to the Supreme Court, would it not?
1
This will one of many tests for Mr. Gorsuch to see if he is really apolitical and can make judgements based on logic and intellect, rather than being a Republican!
4
Redistricting should be done by a non partisan panel nominated by the judiciary.
2
The real crime of gerrymandering is that it solidifies the extreme wings of each party. Only when districts are fairly evenly matched can candidates appeal to a common center. Without a common center we are inexorably headed for one party rule nationwide.
7
One big issue that needs to be addressed, is uneven distribution of voters, with Democrats clumping in urban areas. For all the talk of drawing regular or "square" districts, it still creates a structural disadvantage for one party. One way to solve the problem is to require that a minimum of half the districts that are drawn must be as close to 50/50 Republican/Democratic as possible. Obviously not all districts can be drawn this way, but if at least half are, a lot of our problems with extremism will be solved. These competitive districts will ensure that moderates will likely be the majority in the legislature, marginalizing the extremists. The new computer aided map designs could easily accomplish this.
1
Gerrymandering is one of, if not the greatest threats to democracy. It is insidious discrimination, (not what you are thinking), against those who are not in power used for the sole purpose of keeping those in power, in power.
10
In this country, both parties have a long tradition of gerrymander a district /state. Each has shown a tendency to act in childish ways such as the minority party running across state lines so there can not be a quorum. The problem here is that if the Supreme court rules against gerrymander ( support this) then they have to also provide a mechanism to address all the districts already gerrymandered. This would have profound affects on Democrats as well as Republicans.
What's the answer? I don't know but I do know that outlawing this practice now when most states are a already gerrymandered is not a solution and only will divide the country more. If this happens both parties are to blame and it is time to foor the American people to take to the streets. Whether Liberal or Conservative, it doesn't matter. This affects all.
What's the answer? I don't know but I do know that outlawing this practice now when most states are a already gerrymandered is not a solution and only will divide the country more. If this happens both parties are to blame and it is time to foor the American people to take to the streets. Whether Liberal or Conservative, it doesn't matter. This affects all.
I think that this is the root issue of so many of our political and social maladies.
I feel that we need competitive districts nationwide to foster broad consensus, decorum, cooperation, and a rejuvenation of civic life in the US.
I'm not a praying man, but I'll be praying that Gerrymandering becomes a relic of our past after the Supreme Court strikes it down.
I feel that we need competitive districts nationwide to foster broad consensus, decorum, cooperation, and a rejuvenation of civic life in the US.
I'm not a praying man, but I'll be praying that Gerrymandering becomes a relic of our past after the Supreme Court strikes it down.
5
Amen Ian! :-)
We are long past the point where the courts should be giving deference to the statements of politicians as to their true motivations and look squarely at the consequences of their legislation. Too many of the politicians are both fools and liars.
The only solution to this is federal guidelines on redistricting to protect the rights of all citizens. I would favor algorithms and panels of retired federal judges. Another set of guideline should define what is adequate access to voting.(e.g. early voting, weekend voting, how long you should expect to wait in line, how far you should expect to drive or walk to get to a poll, etc)
The kinds of slimy rationalizations and regulations being perpetrated on our democracy is intolerable. This is where the Supreme Court must show up once and for all. Are they the solution or the problem? Their ridiculous decision on the Voting Rights Act was an embarrassment.
The only solution to this is federal guidelines on redistricting to protect the rights of all citizens. I would favor algorithms and panels of retired federal judges. Another set of guideline should define what is adequate access to voting.(e.g. early voting, weekend voting, how long you should expect to wait in line, how far you should expect to drive or walk to get to a poll, etc)
The kinds of slimy rationalizations and regulations being perpetrated on our democracy is intolerable. This is where the Supreme Court must show up once and for all. Are they the solution or the problem? Their ridiculous decision on the Voting Rights Act was an embarrassment.
9
Remember the good old days when the voters picked their Representatives? Now the Representatives pick their voters.
Time for the Supreme Court to step up on this one.
Time for the Supreme Court to step up on this one.
21
"because of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymanders based on race are flatly illegal"
First, that’s just wrong. The VRA effectively MANDATES racially conscious districting, on the pernicious assumption that only members of certain groups can adequately represent said groups. The VRA essentially required “majority minority” districts to help ensure the election of members of Politically Correct groups.
Then, when said groups were concentrated in one district, the Dems bellyached that same packed them all together, preventing them from spreading their electoral power around, which would (for now) benefit Democrats, but not guarantee the election of the right kind of Democrat for VRA purpose.
There is no constitutional definition of a “gerrymander”, the absurd mathematical arguments advanced in WI notwithstanding. And, curiously, no one from the media ever whined when the Dems gerrymandered the dickens out of NJ (in patent violation of our Constitution) with the blessing of our hard-left Supreme Court. Republicans have routinely won majorities of the statewide legislative vote, which, outside of a parliamentary system, counts for precisely nothing; not one media outlet ever objected.
We could simply let compactness be our guide – NJ’s constitution contains such a requirement, which has always been ignored – but, again, since Democrats tend to pack themselves tightly into small areas, they would object to that, too.
There is simply no neutral way to draw lines.
First, that’s just wrong. The VRA effectively MANDATES racially conscious districting, on the pernicious assumption that only members of certain groups can adequately represent said groups. The VRA essentially required “majority minority” districts to help ensure the election of members of Politically Correct groups.
Then, when said groups were concentrated in one district, the Dems bellyached that same packed them all together, preventing them from spreading their electoral power around, which would (for now) benefit Democrats, but not guarantee the election of the right kind of Democrat for VRA purpose.
There is no constitutional definition of a “gerrymander”, the absurd mathematical arguments advanced in WI notwithstanding. And, curiously, no one from the media ever whined when the Dems gerrymandered the dickens out of NJ (in patent violation of our Constitution) with the blessing of our hard-left Supreme Court. Republicans have routinely won majorities of the statewide legislative vote, which, outside of a parliamentary system, counts for precisely nothing; not one media outlet ever objected.
We could simply let compactness be our guide – NJ’s constitution contains such a requirement, which has always been ignored – but, again, since Democrats tend to pack themselves tightly into small areas, they would object to that, too.
There is simply no neutral way to draw lines.
1
There is a neutral way. Voting districts should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors except population density. Among the factors that would be ignored are race, ethnicity, voter turnout history, income levels, and "communities of interest."
3
This court case just smacks of whining. How soon we forget that Democrats controlled the House from 58 of 62 years (1932-1994) with maps constantly drawn in their favor. Typical of a party that whines about how the census is conducted and can't find or field outstanding candidates. We'll just go to court and see if we can get the Courts to legislate.
3
Although it appears that Wisconsin began gerrymandering districts along political lines since 2012, Massachusetts has been doing this for decades at both the federal and state levels. 100% of Massachusetts' congressional delegation is Democratic but registered Democrats are fewer in number than independents and registered Republicans.
2
Is that why democrats always win the state by more than 20 points?
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
2
Are you suggesting that it is therefore now ok for Republicans to gerrymander because Democrats have done so in the past? I hope not. The issue is to end gerrymandering, not to do so because you have the power to do it, justifying it because the other party has also engaged in it.
3
Gerrymandering is the only reason to make up for blue states benefiting from illegal and legal immigration. The average house district has a population of 700000. So the states with most of the 11 million illegal immigrants have unfairly taken about 15 seats from states without a lot of illegal immigrants. California especially is a huge beneficiary. If states are going to be rewarded for lax immigration enforcement with additional congressional seats, no wonder all these blue states want to declare themselves sanctuary states. Republicans have resorted to the only way to counter the disenfranchisement of their party by the open borders policy of the Democrats.
1
So you say that 11 million illegals voted? Where'd you get that number? Oh, right, POTUS! Well the ex-head of the Repub's in Colorado and some poor woman who was a legal immigrant and thought she could vote both voted for Trump. I realize that leaves 10,999.998 to go, but it's a start.
4
So you say that 11 million illegals voted? Where'd you get that number?
===================
That's not what he said at all.
Congressional seats are allotted by total population, not just the number of citizens in a state. States with large numbers of illegal aliens are therefore rewarded with more seats in Congress by this artificial and illegal increase in their populations
===================
That's not what he said at all.
Congressional seats are allotted by total population, not just the number of citizens in a state. States with large numbers of illegal aliens are therefore rewarded with more seats in Congress by this artificial and illegal increase in their populations
1
Nearly a million legal voters were purged from the voter rolls in the USA using the CrossCheck voter system. If someone managed to get past all of the other voter suppression techniques used by the Republican Party they were given a paper, provisional ballot. These ballots were not counted. They were not included in recounts. These people lost their Right to vote because they had names like Rodriguez or Jackson.
Donald J Trump’s Electoral College victory was with 80,000 votes spread across four swing states.
Trump only won because of the voter purges.
The Republican Senate majority only exists because of voter purges.
The US House only has a Republican majority because of racial Gerrymandering. (IE; A Federal Judge has ordered North Carolina to hold a special election because of this.)
Many state GOP Governors would not be in office without voter suppression.
This was not an election. This was a Radical Right Wing COUP!
This current Republican government is illegitimate.
Donald J Trump’s Electoral College victory was with 80,000 votes spread across four swing states.
Trump only won because of the voter purges.
The Republican Senate majority only exists because of voter purges.
The US House only has a Republican majority because of racial Gerrymandering. (IE; A Federal Judge has ordered North Carolina to hold a special election because of this.)
Many state GOP Governors would not be in office without voter suppression.
This was not an election. This was a Radical Right Wing COUP!
This current Republican government is illegitimate.
14
While I understand the significance of this case there is in fact an alternative. The democrats in mass could take over the republican party itself. It is an open party and run by its membership. If democrats as a party simply initiated a mass program to become republicans and field their own candidates within the Republican party this could in fact destroy that party as it exists today or the Bernie Bros could take it over. There exist other methods to combat partisanship.
5
This article wisely acknowledges the intricacies in what may seem a straightforward matter. As noted, Baker v. Carr turned on the absolute principal of one person one vote. And racial gerrymandering is measurable and enforceable under the Voting Rights Act. To restrict partisan gerrymandering, the Court will need to set a measurable and definite standard, likely based on the racial standards. But readers should be aware that absent specific enforceable standards, each district would be measured on its own merits. That would not help lower courts in making decisions and would not much help the Democrats. Gerrymandering cannot be outlawed on an "I know it when I see it" standard. Rather the Supreme Court will have to create a multi-factor test. It is time that they do that. But keep in mind that it is easier said than done.
5
In the UK an independent commission has to ensure that parliamentary constituencies have roughly the same population and coincide with sensible geographic boundaries often related to recognised neighbourhood lines in cities and locally recognised regional lines in rural areas. Gerrymandering is therefore not a problem in the mainland. However it was a huge issue in Northern Ireland where the Protestant power establishment engineered control over the local government through gerrymandering with disastrous consequences. Only once central government took over and enforced proportional representation was there democratic legitimacy. If your constitution mandates one person one vote then the only purely democratic solution is proportional representation.
6
Why we have elected officials determine districting is beyond stupid
11
Beginning with FDR, Democrats controlled everything and, apparently, no one cared. It was only when the Republicans became relevent in State and House elections (early 1990s) that the evil of gerrymandering became obvious. Either that, or Democrats don't like Republicans taking advantage of State majorities that Liberals thought would be theirs forever.
1
But Republicans DO NOT have majorities in several of these states, and they have not had a majority nationwide in over a decade. Go back and reread the article. There were more votes for Democratic candidates overall than Republicans, but Republicans still won. That is evidence of gerrymandering.
8
But Republicans DO NOT have majorities in several of these states, and they have not had a majority nationwide in over a decade.
==================
Republicans got more total votes than Democrats in Congressional elections in 2016
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-cong...
==================
Republicans got more total votes than Democrats in Congressional elections in 2016
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-cong...
It would appear that the "progressives" oppose gerrymandering when it is done to insure a Republican majority district but are in favor of it when it is used to insure a black majority district that will always vote 110% for the Democrats.
3
"Today, at a time of hyperpartisan politics and computer technology that can measure political leanings almost house by house..."
One company doing such measuring is Cambridge Analytica which worked for Donald Trump's campaign. CA claims to have collected up to 5,000 data points on over 220 million Americans. CA collects data on voters, in part, through internet activity and data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without user's permission or knowledge.
One of the only pieces of legislation passed so far this year was the bill Trump signed two weeks ago stripping away all protections of individuals' internet privacy.
Companies are now free to gather and sell all such information as they please. A boon to companies like Cambridge Analytica and the SCL Group (CA's parent company) whose calls itself a "global election management agency" known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting" to manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL's hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup.
Between gerrymandering and high tech psycho warfare being fed enormous mountains of cash to fulfill these strategies (thanks to Citizens United)... and the fact that aging electronic voting systems are vulnerable to hacking across multiple attack surfaces... free and fair elections in America don't look so free or fair.
One company doing such measuring is Cambridge Analytica which worked for Donald Trump's campaign. CA claims to have collected up to 5,000 data points on over 220 million Americans. CA collects data on voters, in part, through internet activity and data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without user's permission or knowledge.
One of the only pieces of legislation passed so far this year was the bill Trump signed two weeks ago stripping away all protections of individuals' internet privacy.
Companies are now free to gather and sell all such information as they please. A boon to companies like Cambridge Analytica and the SCL Group (CA's parent company) whose calls itself a "global election management agency" known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting" to manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL's hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup.
Between gerrymandering and high tech psycho warfare being fed enormous mountains of cash to fulfill these strategies (thanks to Citizens United)... and the fact that aging electronic voting systems are vulnerable to hacking across multiple attack surfaces... free and fair elections in America don't look so free or fair.
9
One company doing such measuring is Cambridge Analytica which worked for Donald Trump's campaign. CA claims to have collected up to 5,000 data points on over 220 million Americans. CA collects data on voters, in part, through internet activity and data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without user's permission or knowledge.
====================
This makes fascinating reading.
Back in 2008, when the Obama campaign used these same data mining techniques to identify and target voters, we were treated to a parade of stories that told us that this was evidence of what a brilliant group Obama and his staff were. We were told that this was just more evidence of how smart Democrats ran rings around dumb Republicans and that Republicans had no future.
So eight years later, Republicans use the same techniques and we are told this is "high tech psycho warfare" and "fomenting a coup"
====================
This makes fascinating reading.
Back in 2008, when the Obama campaign used these same data mining techniques to identify and target voters, we were treated to a parade of stories that told us that this was evidence of what a brilliant group Obama and his staff were. We were told that this was just more evidence of how smart Democrats ran rings around dumb Republicans and that Republicans had no future.
So eight years later, Republicans use the same techniques and we are told this is "high tech psycho warfare" and "fomenting a coup"
When is this case being heard, and when will it be decided on?
We must move to a fully popular vote in all federal elections. Period.
9
But there's a problem - the Supreme Court is gerrymandered as well.
17
I retain some hope, albeit slight, that Justice Gorsuch will be a fair minded and rational man who truly believes that a purpose of government, as our constitution proclaims is to "establish justice." This issue could be the "canary in the coal mine" that shows whether my hope is justified or wishful thinking.
7
Gorsuch is in up to his eyeballs with corporate Republican connections. He was great friends with Scalia. This is a corporate Supreme Court. Don't forget the corporation is a person. I think that sort of sums up what the Supreme Court thinks of people - they can be figured out on a spreadsheet. My only hope is that the states will eventually take over the job of the Supreme Court and the people will have a greater ability to voice their opinions.
6
One thing that's fairly consistent across the political spectrum is that areas of high population density tend to vote differently than the more rural or isloated areas. This is not surprising; the closer and more numerous your neighbors are, and the more people depend on shared resources, the more options there are for conflict, so more government is necessary. People in the wilderness can walk around naked, fire their guns, play loud music, etc without disturbing others, so they tend to be more individualistic and less interested in social legislation. Rural folks also tend to be more homogeneous culturally, while the cities are diverse. Income disparity is also a factor that affects how people vote.
How about coming up with a formula that puts every city above X population in the center of a district, with the boundaries of those districts drawn geographically but informed by secondary factors such as income, education level, etc. The goal being to have every district include a cross-section of people from all walks of life, which will encourage cooperation and coalition, and will force candidates to consider the needs of all. And specifically disallow political affiliation as a criteria. This will cut down on spin by defining issues according to their actual character rather than their status as an icon of either the left or the right.
How about coming up with a formula that puts every city above X population in the center of a district, with the boundaries of those districts drawn geographically but informed by secondary factors such as income, education level, etc. The goal being to have every district include a cross-section of people from all walks of life, which will encourage cooperation and coalition, and will force candidates to consider the needs of all. And specifically disallow political affiliation as a criteria. This will cut down on spin by defining issues according to their actual character rather than their status as an icon of either the left or the right.
4
Americans need to understand that gerrymandering districts is UNIQUELY an American quirk in American electoral law. No other democracy in the world allows its politicians to also control the mapmaking process of their own districts. Representative democracy does not NEED to have those that benefit from favorable maps to also be the one's drawing them.
The only reason gerrymandering has become the problem it is today, is because of the microprocessor (the computer), that is able to take a complicated math problem (using census data to create a precise geometry in maps) and achieve a result in weeks from what used to take years with pencil and paper. That allows what we today call the 'strategic gerrymander' that affects not just state government, but the federal government itself (which also has the power to make laws for the states).
If we don't fix this (ie remove politicians from drawing their own maps) it will destroy American democracy in a way unforeseen by the Founding Fathers.
The only reason gerrymandering has become the problem it is today, is because of the microprocessor (the computer), that is able to take a complicated math problem (using census data to create a precise geometry in maps) and achieve a result in weeks from what used to take years with pencil and paper. That allows what we today call the 'strategic gerrymander' that affects not just state government, but the federal government itself (which also has the power to make laws for the states).
If we don't fix this (ie remove politicians from drawing their own maps) it will destroy American democracy in a way unforeseen by the Founding Fathers.
10
And has the Supreme Court done anything about gerrymandering, or the corporate takeover of the government?
2
@artistcon3
Did you read the op-ed? It answers your question.
Did you read the op-ed? It answers your question.
1
It is time to rise up and arrest the creeping erosion of our democracy. Gerrymandered districts don't represent their voters interests, period. Even thought I generally support democrats, my Illinois district is also admittedly a creation of pure political manipulation. This issue, unregulated political donations and voter suppression conspire to put us all at risk. Politicians unwilling to do anything about it should be at the top of everyone's list for continuous public shaming.
5
Gerrymandering also makes it easier to target the usual character-assassination ads generated by right wing operatives.
1
It would be interesting to know where the advocates of term limits stand on gerrymandering, which really serves to protect incumbents more than anything else.
2
It was lawyers in the Reagan WH that got gerrymandering past the SCOTUS and underway in its now vile condition. Even if SCOTUS agrees with the lower courts on the undemocratic character of gerrymandering the SCOTUS will not provide a solution to fix it. It will still be up to the GOP lawyers to find ways to circumvent the undemocratic nature of this practice.
Getting re-elected is more important to the GOP than helping the nation in any way. It is always party & party funders first , second & third.
The fix must start wit eliminating lobbies & changing the election campaign funding system so that Dark Money does not control who wins the primaries & ultimately who gets elected. Lobbies are NOT benign things . eg. War was accomplished by and for AIPAC. Eg. It was Wolfowitz who set up the Office Of Special Plans in the Pentagon & staffed it with Feith , Perle, Edelman , Wurmser & 18 other AIPACers who generated the lies used to rev-up US public support to pre-emptively invade Iraq. (In previous gov`t security jobs both Feith & Perle were charged with passing US secrets to Israel.) In 2003, journalist Thom Friedman of the NYT`s counted 25 members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations saying, “if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened”.
Only Israel has benefited from the Iraq invasion.
Getting re-elected is more important to the GOP than helping the nation in any way. It is always party & party funders first , second & third.
The fix must start wit eliminating lobbies & changing the election campaign funding system so that Dark Money does not control who wins the primaries & ultimately who gets elected. Lobbies are NOT benign things . eg. War was accomplished by and for AIPAC. Eg. It was Wolfowitz who set up the Office Of Special Plans in the Pentagon & staffed it with Feith , Perle, Edelman , Wurmser & 18 other AIPACers who generated the lies used to rev-up US public support to pre-emptively invade Iraq. (In previous gov`t security jobs both Feith & Perle were charged with passing US secrets to Israel.) In 2003, journalist Thom Friedman of the NYT`s counted 25 members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations saying, “if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened”.
Only Israel has benefited from the Iraq invasion.
2
According to a Politico article by Paul Goldman and Mark J. Rozell titled “Illegal immigrants Could Elect HIllary” from 10/3/15, illegal immigrants help determine how seats of the Electoral College are divided up between the states. The number of Electoral College seats are assigned to a state depending on what percentage of the population it holds. The population is determined by the Census. The Census Bureau tries to count everyone, regardless of a person’s legal status. The consequence is that states with large numbers of illegal immigrants get more votes in the Electoral College.
Thanks to illegal immigrants, my state and the State of N.Y. both have been awarded an extra vote in the Electoral College. California was given 5 extra votes. These votes were taken away from other states.
This means that even if illegal immigrants are not voting, their presence has changed the Electoral College.
The below is a quote from the Politico article.
"But we fail to find any persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a potentially crucial role in picking a President. Choosing a nation’s leader should be a privilege reserved for her citizens.”
When it comes to redistricting, seats in the Electoral College should depend only on the number of citizens living in each state.
Thanks to illegal immigrants, my state and the State of N.Y. both have been awarded an extra vote in the Electoral College. California was given 5 extra votes. These votes were taken away from other states.
This means that even if illegal immigrants are not voting, their presence has changed the Electoral College.
The below is a quote from the Politico article.
"But we fail to find any persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a potentially crucial role in picking a President. Choosing a nation’s leader should be a privilege reserved for her citizens.”
When it comes to redistricting, seats in the Electoral College should depend only on the number of citizens living in each state.
3
The flip side is that incarcerated individuals, with prisons often located in remote areas, are counted in the census and for redistricting and federal funding to localities. Prisoners also have no voting rights; if you wish to maintain the argument you present, then we should also eliminate prisoners from consideration in these matters.
7
if anything, California and other large states are incredibly UNDER represented. Read this:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12891764
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12891764
1
Justice Kennedy, please side with us.
4
Gerrymandering is a positive-feedback mechanism that will inevitably collapse the whole system into chaos as its presumptuous abuse grows ever more extreme.
6
One would think that politicians would hold in special reverence the ideals of democracy. But in reality, they opt for the exact opposite. They have analyzed democratic institutions, and installed a web of cynical rules and personalities that would shame the Founding Fathers. The proliferation of extremely gerrymandered districts is just one more example.
5
It's as hard to penalize Republicans for NOT comporting themselves in a manner that benefits Democrats as it is to penalize Democrats for doing the same ... isn't it?
1
You just play Spy vs. Spy here yourself, Richard. You aren't interested in any synthesis following from the clash of thesis and antithesis.
3
@Richard Luettgen
That's only true if you believe it's a zero-sum game, Richard. Essentially, you're saying it's too much to ask of politicians to NOT take advantage of a loophole that they KNOW provides an unfair advantage to those who use it. What does that say about our politicians?
Of course, as a practical matter, we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about the ethics of groups of people. And we all know that group ethics trend toward the lowest common denominator. And it simply can't be denied that the Republican party got there first. Only the GOP consciously devised a national strategy to gerrymander control of Congress (the 'Red Map Strategy 2010', you can google it) thereby clearly demonstrating that the party was no longer even nominally interested in the principle of allowing voters to decide which governing philosophy to choose at the ballot box.
The GOP began to believe it's own propaganda, that said Democrats were using the public purse to 'buy' votes by dangling public programs in front of voters, while the GOP, as advocates of smaller government and less taxes, were never going to be able to compete in that game. But instead of letting voters decide, on the basis of the consequences of spending, the GOP conveniently decided that voters just didn't know what they were doing and took that decision--the most basic principle of a democracy: the respect of the voting electorate--and nullified it by gerrymandering district maps. Pols picking voters.
That's only true if you believe it's a zero-sum game, Richard. Essentially, you're saying it's too much to ask of politicians to NOT take advantage of a loophole that they KNOW provides an unfair advantage to those who use it. What does that say about our politicians?
Of course, as a practical matter, we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about the ethics of groups of people. And we all know that group ethics trend toward the lowest common denominator. And it simply can't be denied that the Republican party got there first. Only the GOP consciously devised a national strategy to gerrymander control of Congress (the 'Red Map Strategy 2010', you can google it) thereby clearly demonstrating that the party was no longer even nominally interested in the principle of allowing voters to decide which governing philosophy to choose at the ballot box.
The GOP began to believe it's own propaganda, that said Democrats were using the public purse to 'buy' votes by dangling public programs in front of voters, while the GOP, as advocates of smaller government and less taxes, were never going to be able to compete in that game. But instead of letting voters decide, on the basis of the consequences of spending, the GOP conveniently decided that voters just didn't know what they were doing and took that decision--the most basic principle of a democracy: the respect of the voting electorate--and nullified it by gerrymandering district maps. Pols picking voters.
2
Ronald Reagan taught Republicans they don't have to be conservative. Cutting taxes instead of paying the bills is not a conservative attribute.
Newt Gingrich taught Republicans they only need to win election and obstruct. They don't need to govern.
QED.
Newt Gingrich taught Republicans they only need to win election and obstruct. They don't need to govern.
QED.
16
I think Reagan gave the whole right wing dyslexia.
2
"Gerrymandering" is a word most Republicans do not know how to spell, let alone know the meaning of.......we should be more worried about Palin visiting Trump. Now, THERE is a great possibility for great misadventures. With Sessions in the AG and the Dept of Homeland Security in such fragile and uneducated hands, do not be surprised at what happens now.......
3
Actually they need to think outside the box. Forget gerrymandering, how about doing away with any redistricting drawn by legislatures at all? Districts can and should be drawn up by computer algorithms based on population derived from census statistics. I think the public would feel far less aggrieved knowing that nobody was intentionally drawing boundaries to skew electoral outcomes!
8
Gerrymandering headed to SCOTUS?
This is gonna be Fun! Please hold off until I can get a big enough bag of popcorn.
This is gonna be Fun! Please hold off until I can get a big enough bag of popcorn.
2
I live in a bottom jagged tip of GA -11 that was Gerrymandered out of GA-6 in 2013. I am 4 houses south of I-285 in a subdivision parallel to Lakeforrest Rd. Part of my subdivision is on Lake Forrest Rd. ( Many of you have seen Lake Forrest Rd. On the Real Housewives of Atlanta a big party was held in the season finale less than 1 mile south of me). My side and the cast of the RHOA were put in GA-11. The opposite side of Lake Forrest above Stewart ( maybe another street down the maps aren't clear) remain in GA-6. Those of us who were taken out are now represented by Barry Loudermilk a Tea Party Republican who lives 50 plus miles away in a rural town called Cassville that most people in Atlanta, Sandy Springs, Marietta have never heard of.
Most People had no idea that they had been moved out until they went to vote for Ossoff because their has not been a candidate running in the Democrate primary, or the election decided beyond a primary.
They also had people showing up in the Red areas of Cherokee and Bartow counties who also got Gerrymandered out on the other end of the districts.
This shows when people have 17-19 candidates and some new blood they show up to vote. ELection officials that had the audacity to tell people you should know where your suppose to vote when the map zigs and zags makes no sense. Not everyone from the same Elementary School is even in the same congressional district.
Most People had no idea that they had been moved out until they went to vote for Ossoff because their has not been a candidate running in the Democrate primary, or the election decided beyond a primary.
They also had people showing up in the Red areas of Cherokee and Bartow counties who also got Gerrymandered out on the other end of the districts.
This shows when people have 17-19 candidates and some new blood they show up to vote. ELection officials that had the audacity to tell people you should know where your suppose to vote when the map zigs and zags makes no sense. Not everyone from the same Elementary School is even in the same congressional district.
16
Interesting. Brought to mind the importance of precinct committee leaders and the responsibility to educate voters within an area as to not only candidates but boundaries as well.
2
If I am granted an anonymous vote, then gerrymandering undoes such anonymity. In essence, my vote is counted before the next election and as such, gerrymandering means the politicians pick their constituents instead of the reverse.
gerrymandering NEEDS to end if we"re going to prolong the dog and pony show of our elections.
then we come for the electoral college.
then removal of first past the post elections.
gerrymandering NEEDS to end if we"re going to prolong the dog and pony show of our elections.
then we come for the electoral college.
then removal of first past the post elections.
12
There is another aspect to gerrymandering beyond the obvious effect of impacting election outcomes. Politicians who make it into office this way perceive themselves as 'untouchable.' They no longer feel the weigh the views of- or even listen to- all of their constituents. Compromise becomes an impossibility. Countries where the views of the majority- and often a substantial majority- are ignored, usually end up with constant unrest, protests and even violence. In 1775 it led to the American Revolution.
101
Absolutely. My new Congressman refuses to schedule a single public Town Hall with his constituents. I've watched his votes using several vote tracker apps and he doesn't vote the way 55-75% of his district wants him to vote on a wide variety of issues in just the past 90 days. He already feels untouchable in this obviously gerrymandered district.
3
Yes PB, and I say that all politicians who made it into office by way of gerrymandering should be 'fired' and sent home. I am ready for another American Revolution - see my Letter to the Editor yesterday at bigbendnow.com. And, I wonder why there was no mention of Texas gerrymandering in this article !!!
2
There has only been one really consequential gerrymander in American history. In 1981, San Francisco Democrat John Burton, who spoke of "crushing oppressors", aggressively gerrymandered California at both state and federal levels. Democrats held the legislature for the next 10 years, and although Republicans won a majority of California votes for US House of Representatives in 1984, Democrats took 2/3 of the seats and retained control of the US House of Representatives. They used their remaining control to legalize illegal immigrants in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, giving them permanent political control of California ever thereafter once the new citizens gained the vote in the late 1990's. No Republican gerrymander has ever approached this.
1
nuts. first of all, many all red states have a pretty even split of voters. that's what the courts are reviewing.
second, recent history shows California has a non-partisan independent commission drawing district lines.
second, recent history shows California has a non-partisan independent commission drawing district lines.
16
Utter nonsense... Simpson was a Republican from Wyoming. Mazzoli was a Democrat from Kentucky. Their proposed bill, enjoyed bi-partisan support in congress, wide-spread support in the public and in the end was passed into law with the support of then President Ronald Reagan.
8
Try Pennsylvania 2012. Obama carried the State and the Democrats had a larger total number of House votes.
The result? 13 Republicans, 5 Democrats.
You may want to reconsider.
The result? 13 Republicans, 5 Democrats.
You may want to reconsider.
6
When did cheating become patriotic? These people should be ashamed. I guess they hate deomcracy and more than half of all Americans.
14
This is so obvious as an anti-democracy strategy that for the Courts to pretend nuances is hypocritical. Voters should pick representatives not the other way around. Look at the maps. Look at mine - Pennsylvania 7th. Duh!
11
Utah is gerrymandered so bad it's not funny!! My congressman's district covers Salt Lake and Saint George, look at a map, neither is close to each other, 4 hours apart!!!
1
Just look at my district (Texas Congressional District 2) and tell me it isn't gerrymandered to keep Ted Poe in office. Really! Look at a map!
10
So a man who characterized President Obama as a "subhuman mongrel" was honored with a visit to the Oval Office. That says it all.
8
This is essentially the same #SCOTUS that brought us citizen's united. I do not have high hopes.
7
Democrats aren't going to be happy with any map unless they themselves get to gerrymander (which kind of defeats the purpose of this whole argument). Take my state, for instance...I live in Durham, so either way I'm going to be in a heavily-blue district, but if the SC strikes it all down and says go strictly by geography, legislatures will just bunch up Wake and Durham county, maybe let Charlotte and Greensboro be their own districts, etc. Since the left's voters are so densely congregated in the cities, remapping would MAYBE swing 2 seats, and then Democrats would keep crying foul.
In the end this is all going to be completely irrelevant...SC rules, states make a half-hearted attempt at complying, lawsuits ensue, cases are tied up for several years, and then BOOM! 2020 rolls around and it starts all over again.
In the end this is all going to be completely irrelevant...SC rules, states make a half-hearted attempt at complying, lawsuits ensue, cases are tied up for several years, and then BOOM! 2020 rolls around and it starts all over again.
1
If you can write a program to pack and crack, you can write a program to remove partisanship. Draw them blindly, simply based on geography and population. But no one wants to do this until they're out of power. The shortsightedness of politicians is bottomless.
13
Utah is a text book case of political gerrymandering. Our state is about 45% Democrat, but our congressional districts are deliberately drawn to ensure us no federal representation. SLC is carved out into 3 districts. 3! Voters are suppose to be the ones picking their representatives, not the other way around. The latter is dictatorship, not a Democratic Republic.
8
Spot on, Stewart is my congressman and look at his district, it's a joke!!!
Voting districts should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors except population density. This would restore the “one person/one vote” principle, but it would also eliminate racial and ethnic gerrymandering. The Voting Rights Acts decrees that minorities must be afforded equal opportunity to participate in elections and “elect candidates of their choice.” The Justice Department has interpreted this to mean that wherever racial or ethnically polarized voting exists—which is almost everywhere—states and local jurisdictions must create voting districts in which African Americans or Hispanics voters are a majority. For example, a federal district court recently ordered Texas to redraw its voting district because it didn’t gerrymander enough Hispanic voting districts. Perhaps the Justice Department under Trump outlaw all types of gerrymandering.
3
How about SCOTUS adopting a rule that each CD can not contain the part of more than one county. So every CD would have to fully contained within a county or consist of all of one or more counties and the part of no more than one other. Since every state is divided into counties or parishes the boundaries of which are pretty much fixed, such a rule I would submit would limit the shenanigans that state legislatures often indulge in to give their party an advantage.
2
Probably a strategic mistake for Democrats to unite against Gorsuch and now plead with him on redistricting. As with Clarence Thomas high tech lynching 25 years ago, the Democrats have poisoned their well.
2
Merrick Garland would love to have a chat with you about how that sounds to any sane person. If Gorsuch were a man of honor, he would have refused the nomination. Case closed.
6
Gerrymandering benefits no one in the long run. Elected representatives are justified to take extreme positions because their constituents represent not a spectrum of ideology but a shifted window to the right or left.
If we believe in democracy we must understand that gerrymandering is wrong; in the same sense that the Citizens United decision was wrong. In the latter case one dollar counts more than one vote; in the former association with the majority counts more than association with a minority.
Both are an entry point to convert a democracy to a tyranny of the rich in the latter, of the many in the former. Both appear deeply unconstitutional.
If we believe in democracy we must understand that gerrymandering is wrong; in the same sense that the Citizens United decision was wrong. In the latter case one dollar counts more than one vote; in the former association with the majority counts more than association with a minority.
Both are an entry point to convert a democracy to a tyranny of the rich in the latter, of the many in the former. Both appear deeply unconstitutional.
5
SCOTUS should look to how other countries draw their political boundaries and to those handful of states - such as California and Arizona - who have established somewhat non-partisan approaches to drawing districts.
Of course, one alternative solution would be to eliminate Congressional districts and have the House elected nationally in a multi-party Parliamentary-style model - or at least have the multi-party elections done within each state.
Of course, one alternative solution would be to eliminate Congressional districts and have the House elected nationally in a multi-party Parliamentary-style model - or at least have the multi-party elections done within each state.
1
Today's far right extremists that dominate the Republican Party (along with the Roberts' SCOTUS) can't win on the merits of ANY issue so they have resorted to extreme gerrymandering, preventing certain voters from accessing the ballot box in every which way they can, gutting section 5 of the voting rights act....it's on and on. And let's not forget the Koch brothers and all of the other dark money that has bankrolled these operations in state after state. Next up is changing the Constitution when they have majority control of 34 states....and they are almost there. The oligarchs are destroying our democracy and whats left of it.
9
In a democracy voters pick a candidate. With the recent and increased gerrymandering effort by the GOP, the candidates pick the voters. It's just a slippery slope away from stuffing ballot boxes! Looks cleaner, less obvious, same stink.
4
Restrict the perimeter of a district to be, say, 8 times its area. That would solve the problem simply, fairly, and completely.
A square's perimeter is four times its area. A circle's perimeter is ~3.14 times its area.
A square's perimeter is four times its area. A circle's perimeter is ~3.14 times its area.
2
If the Supreme Court can find a way to end this, we might have the beginnings of Democracy one again in the U.S. Next, the ridiculous Electoral College has to go.
6
Why is this so hard to fix? Make all seats in a state At Large seats. Boom, no districts to gerrymander. If your state has three seats up this cycle you go to the polls and pick three candidates from the list of those running. Done. Problem solved.
5
That would not work because ideally your representative is local, understands local issues and represents you. You are represented by one congressman, not six or eight.
1
We obviously cannot trust any legislature to redistrict itself. Some non-partisan body, be it the Courts or a citizen's commission or a computer program, must take over that process. Allowing the process to be subverted by Party insiders is the first step toward denying this country a "Republican form" of government.
2
This is not only Gorsuch's first important case, it could well be the one that defines his membership on the Court. If he casts the deciding vote in favor of the current gerrymandered districting, he'll seal Mitch McConnell's legacy as the Senator who saved the Republican Party's majority for the foreseeable future, and make all the flak McConnell took over ignoring the Garland nomination worthwhile.
When you define your ethics via political gain, the choices are easy, but not necessarily fair.
When you define your ethics via political gain, the choices are easy, but not necessarily fair.
4
Democracy in the US, the leader of the free world, is defined as "politicians choose the voters who can participate in elections".
All modern dictatorships want a mantle of democracy to give them legitimacy.
All modern dictatorships want a mantle of democracy to give them legitimacy.
5
When our foreign critics, point out the reasons the USA is not a democracy (but a plutocracy) "Gerrymandering" is given as a prime example.
Intentionally trying to undermine the democratic process (as gerrymandering does) is un-American.
But, however, not to those who practice, "Big Business must continue to rule the USA -- no matter what it takes."
Intentionally trying to undermine the democratic process (as gerrymandering does) is un-American.
But, however, not to those who practice, "Big Business must continue to rule the USA -- no matter what it takes."
5
Both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering districts. While doing so may benefit political parties, the American people lose their voices. We deserve a fair and balanced democracy where the voters are able to choose the best person who represents their values.
If a political party can only win by cheating then the party is no longer relevant and deserves to go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists. President Lincoln said it best in the Gettysburg address: "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
We rely on the judiciary to step up and protect our rights when those in power overstep themselves. Lately there has been a concentrated effort on the part of the Republican party to silence Americans and make it harder and harder for us to vote. This case represents an opportunity for the supreme court to restore America's democracy to the American people.
If a political party can only win by cheating then the party is no longer relevant and deserves to go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists. President Lincoln said it best in the Gettysburg address: "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
We rely on the judiciary to step up and protect our rights when those in power overstep themselves. Lately there has been a concentrated effort on the part of the Republican party to silence Americans and make it harder and harder for us to vote. This case represents an opportunity for the supreme court to restore America's democracy to the American people.
77
@Ami
Both parties have done it historically, to control individual state legislatures, but only one party has turned it into a national strategy to influence the entire federal Congress: the GOP, with it's 2010 'Red Map Strategy'. That's where the Tea Party comes from; safe, gerrymandered seats. You can google it, it's unabashedly unashamed in its undemocratic goal: to diminish the power of individual votes by creating a structural hurdle that negatively affects only one party. That's why it's called 'partisan gerrymandering'. It's not to redistrict in order to follow demographic changes in the physical location of people, it's to identify reliable partisans and artificially put them into a series of special, manufactured, districts that elevates just those chosen voices over all others in the same area. Politicians choosing their voters. That's about as undemocratic as it gets. And unfortunately for American democracy, it's technically legal, hence this important law suit. For my money gerrymandering is the single most divisive phenomenon affecting the past 30 years of American politics, and the GOP put it into hyperdrive.
Both parties have done it historically, to control individual state legislatures, but only one party has turned it into a national strategy to influence the entire federal Congress: the GOP, with it's 2010 'Red Map Strategy'. That's where the Tea Party comes from; safe, gerrymandered seats. You can google it, it's unabashedly unashamed in its undemocratic goal: to diminish the power of individual votes by creating a structural hurdle that negatively affects only one party. That's why it's called 'partisan gerrymandering'. It's not to redistrict in order to follow demographic changes in the physical location of people, it's to identify reliable partisans and artificially put them into a series of special, manufactured, districts that elevates just those chosen voices over all others in the same area. Politicians choosing their voters. That's about as undemocratic as it gets. And unfortunately for American democracy, it's technically legal, hence this important law suit. For my money gerrymandering is the single most divisive phenomenon affecting the past 30 years of American politics, and the GOP put it into hyperdrive.
2
Yet in many respects, we have a more political court than my 55 voting years in different states. Severe Gerrymandering has occurred in many states' legislatures & Congressional districts over the past 10+ years. The article & comments describe multiple ways to Gerrymander districts.
The Supreme Court Judges have political backgrounds. They were given lifetime tenure-unlike 4 years for President with a 2 term cap & 2 year House & 6 year Senate terms-both renewable by voters - to maintain the intent of our founders adjusted for modern changes over 225+ years of our constitution.
The Supreme Court Judges have political backgrounds. They were given lifetime tenure-unlike 4 years for President with a 2 term cap & 2 year House & 6 year Senate terms-both renewable by voters - to maintain the intent of our founders adjusted for modern changes over 225+ years of our constitution.
Sometimes you cant see Gerrymandering? Give me a break. Look what a Republican State House did to Michigan's 14th! It flows like a fallen down drunken J. From the Grosse Points, through Hamtramck, then Southfield north west to Farmington Hills, West Bloomfield and finally the near bankrupt city of Pontiac. Shame on you Republican cheats.
9
Let's remember to not be hypocritical. Gerrymandering goes both ways. I'd like to get rid of the biases once and for all.
The time to do something about this problem is long overdue. Americans are losing faith in the system that is supposed to insure their representation. Gerrymandering, requiring ridiculous forms of ID citing nonexistent voter fraud, purging people from the voter rolls before elections, Crosscheck, eliminating hours for people to vote, shortchanging precincts of voting machines so there are hours of wait time, and now in Georgia 6, saying the June election is part of the primary so young voters who registered later can't vote, all undermine Americans faith in our democracy. If we cannot get some relief from the Supreme Court, all the activism in the world won't help.
129
This is a big deal. Gerrymandering has paralyzed our political system by removing ideological competition in many congressional districts. Unfortunately it is something the republicans do much better than democrats. It has virtually locked-in the republican control of the House no matter what the voters do, so I doubt the republican supreme court will do anything to stop it.
8
I am reminded of late Justice Potter Stewart's comment on obscenity, in that we know what it is when we see it, but describing what is and what is not is a challenge. I am no legal scholar, but I wonder how the court will be able to craft a decision that can be reasonably applied and will survive the test of time.
5
The answer is the same as what proves the manipulation. Each party should be guaranteed seats in proportion of the popular vote in the State as a whole.
3
The PA Constitution suggests a simple, fair criterion that could end partisan redistricting as we know it: " Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district." Practically, this criterion could be used to create competition in redistricting: let anyone submit a prospective plan, and adopt the one with the fewest divisions.
Of course, depriving the political in-crowd of the discretion to ignore the criterion requires "a sense of decorum and restraint" in the legislature and the judiciary. But at least the search for a powerful, easy-to-understand measure of the fairness of a redistricting map can end at PA Const. Art. II Sect. 16.
Of course, depriving the political in-crowd of the discretion to ignore the criterion requires "a sense of decorum and restraint" in the legislature and the judiciary. But at least the search for a powerful, easy-to-understand measure of the fairness of a redistricting map can end at PA Const. Art. II Sect. 16.
4
I am excited this case is headed to the Supreme Court. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights.
As for finding how to determine which aspects are egregious and illegal, I think it will be easy for the SCOTUS to determine the instances of appropriateness vs inappropriateness. For example, the 6th district of Georgia has been Republican since 1979. That District has stayed in tact with a change of voter preference based on our current political state. The majority of those residents in that area are highly educated and although mostly affiliated with the Republican Party, many vote irrespective of party. In essence, redrawing of lines based on party affiliation is discriminatory and unless a district needs to be added due to numbers such as Georgia in 2010, lines need to return to how they were constructed originally like Georgia 6....and left untouched. Anything else is sabotage and an assault on our democracy.
I also believe any lines redrawn after 2009 will reveal an obvious story as well. While I'm no lawyer, I doubt it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to figure this one out.
As for finding how to determine which aspects are egregious and illegal, I think it will be easy for the SCOTUS to determine the instances of appropriateness vs inappropriateness. For example, the 6th district of Georgia has been Republican since 1979. That District has stayed in tact with a change of voter preference based on our current political state. The majority of those residents in that area are highly educated and although mostly affiliated with the Republican Party, many vote irrespective of party. In essence, redrawing of lines based on party affiliation is discriminatory and unless a district needs to be added due to numbers such as Georgia in 2010, lines need to return to how they were constructed originally like Georgia 6....and left untouched. Anything else is sabotage and an assault on our democracy.
I also believe any lines redrawn after 2009 will reveal an obvious story as well. While I'm no lawyer, I doubt it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to figure this one out.
33
I wouldn't get too excited. Five of the justices are ideological GOP people, gerrymandering will not be altered in the slightest. Fascists always march in lockstep.
5
Now the Gorsuch is on the court do not expect this to be fixed.
You are being optimistic. The Supreme Court is hearing a case that may define Church State separation on a Church's participation in a State sponsored Playground program. Now talk about stupid and where this will go. Let us all PRAY that they see the set up and do not take the bait BUT they took the bait by hearing the case. It seems that no one suggested that the Church could set up a non-religious not for profit to run the day care center BUT NO the Church must run the center. Hummmmm as I say Peace
Every night I go to sleep worried about what disastrous action Trump and members of his team will foist on our citizens the following day. Will Trump push the button in a fit of anger against North Korea? Will North Korea send an ICBM to Los Angeles?
The incredible hope, the possibility that the Supreme Court will stand up against and maybe outlaw gerrymandering is the first piece of good news I've read since November 8, 2016.
The incredible hope, the possibility that the Supreme Court will stand up against and maybe outlaw gerrymandering is the first piece of good news I've read since November 8, 2016.
6
We do not live in a democracy so long as this manipulation of the electoral process is allowed, and the will of the majority can be safely ignored. It is government of the office holder, by the office holder, for the office holder. The will of the people is irrelevant. Think about that, be very afraid, and resist.
23
We do not live in a democracy so long as this manipulation of the electoral process is allowed,
==================
You don't live in a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic
==================
You don't live in a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic
No matter what the supreme court says we will still have gerrymandering. Here's why: If Republicans win we still have gerrymandering; if Democrats win, Republicans, who have no respect for the law, will continue gerrymandering in states where they control the legislature, forcing Democrats to sue again, and again. Republicans have learned that, a major political party in the US is above the law or the will of the people.
5
In Ohio our state legislature consists of many flat earthers who regularly pass crazy legislation. It all has to be overridden by referendum come election time because the statehouse clearly doesn't represent the state! Let's hope the SCOTUS does the right thing, but an illegit justice sitting in a stolen seat does not give me confidence. Is there anything in this country that works anymore?
13
But you live in Yellow Springs, four square miles surrounded by reality
Now Donald Trump is our 45th President for the next five years, I try very hard to open my mind and see something positive about him. The man tweets almost daily on some trivial matters, then I say to myself he must be bluffing to distract attention away from the real situations.
Then Steve Bannon was going to be removed, and he stays actually.
And now this ensemble of clowns when the Country is facing a critical situation and it is not ever hundred days.
Donald Trump have failed to accomplish one single thing in his first hundred days of Presidency.
Then Steve Bannon was going to be removed, and he stays actually.
And now this ensemble of clowns when the Country is facing a critical situation and it is not ever hundred days.
Donald Trump have failed to accomplish one single thing in his first hundred days of Presidency.
2
Decisions like this one are the very reason that the Republicans blocked Garland and steamrolled Gorsuch.
To the Republicans, running the country is a business opportunity and they cash in by taking advantage of "gut" voters.
To the victors go the spoils. . .
"I love the poorly educated."
- Donald Trump
To the Republicans, running the country is a business opportunity and they cash in by taking advantage of "gut" voters.
To the victors go the spoils. . .
"I love the poorly educated."
- Donald Trump
17
In Pennsylvania we have districts that are 10 mile wide and stretches from Scranton to south of Carlisle. Others that circle around another almost completely for 300 degrees. All thanks to the State's GOP.
5
Gerrymandering to the extent that it consistently overrides the local population's intent, with no legal redress, leads to permanent discontent and eventually revolution.
7
the usa is famous for gerrymandering. it's another example of the slide into a very wealthy, powerful banana republic.
18
The Supreme Court, without stopping gerrymandering, is clearly politicized. That spells big problems for fairness in this country.
11
Beware former California Governor Schwarzenegger's attempts to "outlaw gerrymandering." California's voters already approved, and the state has, a nonpartisan commission in charge of redistricting. Any politician's effort to "fix" this will probably actually entail breaking it, to re-allow gerrymandering in the fine print no matter what the proposal says in its title.
2
Somehow the members of that nonpartisan commission all turn out to be Democrats
"Fair" is a concept that the GOP is running away from with all imaginable haste.
While the left may be guilty of trying very hard to provide for those who have less, the right is guilty of trying very hard to provide for those who already have much. That includes money, power and votes.
While the left may be guilty of trying very hard to provide for those who have less, the right is guilty of trying very hard to provide for those who already have much. That includes money, power and votes.
13
It is time to squash the GOP. I hope the court understands the importance of stopping partisan gerrymandering to create level standards for our national elections. I see an end to the obstructionist Congress and a good opportunity to get the nation back to bi-partisanship. Gerrymandering has been the poison in the political stew. This practice has given the GOP the power to obfuscate continually for the last 20 years in Congress. Gerrymandering gave us Trump.
6
The decision of our Supreme Court will directly reflect the extent that the individual justices in the SCOTUS believe in the foundational role played by representational democracy in our nation governed by laws.
Not since Dred Scott or Brown V Board has a case weighed so heavily on the ethics of our justices.
Not since Dred Scott or Brown V Board has a case weighed so heavily on the ethics of our justices.
142
Just take a ruler and draw boxes in each state one for each congressional district. move the lines left and right and up and down every ten years. This is close enough for government work and congressional districts. Then instead of winner take all in presidential elections, the winner of the congressional district gets the electoral votes in that district. So you can win nyc electoral votes and lose upstate NY electoral votes i.e. Clinton wins nyc 20 electoral votes, trump wins 15 electoral votes from upstate NY. Apply this to all 50 states. Why should my vote be counted to Clinton, when I voted for trump.
1
Gerrymandering. Voter Suppression. Fear-Mongering. The Southern Strategy.™ This combination is the only way Republicans can win. Certainly it's not their affinity for bipartisan pragmatic solutions to complicated issues that are in the best interests of their non-corporate, non-billionaire constituents. Their ideas just don't sell in the marketplace of democracy.
10
Gerrymandering is the one issue in American politics that demonstrates the current philosophy of the Republican Party: If you can't win, cheat.
89
The Constitution delegated redistricting to state legislatures. Which means the party that controls the legislature gets to draw the district boundaries and would, of course, try to enhance its control. But the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees "equal protection" which is meant to limit gerrymandering for the purpose of perpetuating political power while denying voters equal protection. There is no way to justify allowing a party that gets fewer statewide votes to dominate state legislatures and Congressional seats. But that's exactly what has happened. My former suburban Congressional district, which was gradually turning blue, was redrawn to shove Democrats into a consistently blue urban district while enabling my former Tea Party congressman to retain perpetual Red Power -- a Putin-like strategy that should be condemned by the Supreme Court.
38
"Should"...will?
So long as we can also undo Majority-minority districts and return to contiguous and compact
nah
nah
3
Republicans have been playing the long game for decades. First they got control of most state legislatures. Then they Gerrymandered voting districts to assure continued electoral dominance locally and nationally. Whenever a Republican is elected president, nominate and approve judges that are conservative Republicans. The most important question of our time is, "Will Democrats start playing the long game for the next several decades?" I recommend patience and perseverance.
2
This is not a pivotal moment at all. Since the court has five dedicated Republicans, who are all as partisan as any Supreme Court justice has ever been, it will be decided that gerrymandering is fine because it helps Republicans. Clearly, it's been used mostly to consolidate Republican power, and as the end goal is fascist dominion over everyone who isn't male, white, and rich, the five GOP judges will decide gerrymandering is great and should stay.
If we wanted liberty and fairness in this nation, we wouldn't have elected Trump, and until Republicans are out of power the only changes we will see will be for the worse. That's if we still have a democracy in a few years and the GOP gets booted out of power; quite possibly the 2020 election will be cancelled, Trump will declare himself president for life, we'll be in a dictatorship, and there will be no hope for America.
If we wanted liberty and fairness in this nation, we wouldn't have elected Trump, and until Republicans are out of power the only changes we will see will be for the worse. That's if we still have a democracy in a few years and the GOP gets booted out of power; quite possibly the 2020 election will be cancelled, Trump will declare himself president for life, we'll be in a dictatorship, and there will be no hope for America.
10
Since the US Constitution is silent about gerrymandered House districts, "Originalist" Gorsuch will of course rule in favor of states. There is also no mention in the Constitution of benefiting from the receipt of stolen property like a seat on the Supreme Court.
5
Well, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution, either, but its substance is. I'm pretty sure that an argument for "equal representation" can be made, even by the knuckle dragging originalists.
Districts should be drawn by impartial non-partisan groups, not the party in charge when the rules are being rewritten. Period. No-brainer. This country is absolutely maddening. If one party can't win on the value of their ideas and abilities, changing the rules to sneak in the backdoor doesn't make you clever, it makes you illegitimate, anti-democratic and anti-American.
16
You say impartial non-partisan groups like that actually exists.
3
"if you’re a Democrat in Rhode Island, you get an outsized say.’’
Not so fast - In the Providence Journal article "A snapshot view of RI registered voters," dated November 6, 2016, just 11.8% of RI's voters are Republican. No matter how you slice our two congressional districts you can't gerrymander them enough in the other direction to make either one Republican. Why would the legislature risk a lawsuit to gerrymander a state with so few Republicans?
Not so fast - In the Providence Journal article "A snapshot view of RI registered voters," dated November 6, 2016, just 11.8% of RI's voters are Republican. No matter how you slice our two congressional districts you can't gerrymander them enough in the other direction to make either one Republican. Why would the legislature risk a lawsuit to gerrymander a state with so few Republicans?
6
Gerrymandering may be great for the party that's doing it. However, it deprives a sizable number of voters/citizens from being fairly represented. While the 2016 presidential election wasn't directly the result of gerrymandering one can say, based upon the popular vote, that an awful lot of citizens who voted are not being fairly represented because the popular vote was for Clinton, not Trump. Gerrymandering destroys people's faith in the system because of how easy it becomes to ignore them. If legislators care only about being re-elected gerrymandering is easy to justify. However we know, if we're a minority in their district where we were a majority before lines were redrawn, that our voices are not going to be heard.
It's a variation of "heads I win, tails you lose" that ought to be tossed out. Majority rule is great for the majority but it can and often does hurt the minority. When I know I'm not going to be taken seriously I won't bother to speak up. I won't bother to participate. Citizenship becomes an empty exercise. Gerrymandering does create cynicism and anger. Why should any party's politicians have a free shot at a seat when so many of us have to struggle to find jobs? Who does Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell think they are fooling when they tell us jobs are plentiful? We don't have their rolodexes of contacts. In my opinion all seats and elections should have at least two decent viable candidates. Otherwise it's not a choice.
It's a variation of "heads I win, tails you lose" that ought to be tossed out. Majority rule is great for the majority but it can and often does hurt the minority. When I know I'm not going to be taken seriously I won't bother to speak up. I won't bother to participate. Citizenship becomes an empty exercise. Gerrymandering does create cynicism and anger. Why should any party's politicians have a free shot at a seat when so many of us have to struggle to find jobs? Who does Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell think they are fooling when they tell us jobs are plentiful? We don't have their rolodexes of contacts. In my opinion all seats and elections should have at least two decent viable candidates. Otherwise it's not a choice.
5
This is the single most important issue the Supreme Court will decide on for perhaps generations. I am watching it closely, as I believe the fate of our democracy lies in the balance.
I'm not being hyperbolic. I truly believe this.
I'm counting on Kennedy to have a conscience (as he usually does).
I'm not being hyperbolic. I truly believe this.
I'm counting on Kennedy to have a conscience (as he usually does).
362
You are absolutely correct.
I am standing with you! And everyone who does also ought to make a statement here as well!
I agree, Kennedy has also demonstrated empathy in his rulings. My concern is with Gorsuch. His judgements against workers, as in the truck driver case, and his judgement against the child with autism, show him to be lacking in this area.
1
It will be interesting to see what Judge Gorsuch decides on this issue. I don't believe that he will vote to change gerrymandering if it will benefit the Democrats in any way. I would love to be proven wrong though.
12
Not sure how you can justify this paragraph:
"Partly because of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymanders based on race are flatly illegal, but ones based on partisan intent remain in limbo."
In fact, the VRA requires race to be considered in drawing districts. Discrimination based on race is illegal, but those are very different things.
"Partly because of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymanders based on race are flatly illegal, but ones based on partisan intent remain in limbo."
In fact, the VRA requires race to be considered in drawing districts. Discrimination based on race is illegal, but those are very different things.
4
The Supreme Court "has never found a way to decide which ones cross the line." That is, they have to find a formulation that allows Republican gerrymandering, but not Democratic gerrymandering. They don't need to worry too much- Republicans are in charge in most states, so the Dems won't have much opportunity to capitalize upon a poor formulation.
1
The framework for districts is supposed to be "compact and contiguous." Many of these districts are anything but that. The technology that is currently used to do this gerrymandering should be used for good, not evil - enter the exact location of every voter without any identifying information about them (race, gender, age, party) and have the computers then draw the most efficient districts. This really shouldn't be that complicated...
4
If only voters understood that this would be THE real game changer. This one fix could start to steer this country toward responsible and responsive government. A government with elected officials who actually do what they need to do while supporting the private sector in what they need to do. Presidential elections are entertainment, but this is the real deal. We need creative artist and advertisers to make it interesting enough to catch the public's attention.
10
I'm siding with my state as a fair system of drawing the lines. We use a non-partisan voluntary citizens group to do the work. It may not be perfect, but far better than having politicians do it which has an inherent conflict of interest. And while we're talking about good governance, we also automatically register everyone to vote who shows up at the DMV for a new or renewal drivers license upon proof of citizenship. You can then choose to vote entirely by mail in the comfort of your home with feet propped up. No need to go anywhere. Now, if the rest of the country can follow our lead....
3
We use a non-partisan voluntary citizens group to do the work
=================
Somehow all those "non-partisan voluntary citizens" always turn out to be Democrats
=================
Somehow all those "non-partisan voluntary citizens" always turn out to be Democrats
Sad to say, this pivotal moment has come after the Nomination of Justice Gorsuch, a seat on the Supreme Court stolen from the Democrats. How can one expect a just ruling against the very obvious, existent gerrymandering? In his past rulings Justice Gorsuch has been partisan. But he is seen as a very capable, good judge who sticks by the Constitution. As a SC Justice I hope he sticks by the Constitution, not bury it in convoluted legalese to achieve partisan ends. His predecessor was a genius at that. If if he disappoints us, our only hope is Justice Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts!
95
The problem is that the Constitution leaves the drawing of voting districts up to the states, as long as they don't violate the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against ethnic or racial minorities. In the past, the Justice Department has successfully argued that the Voting Rights Act requires states to draw vdistricts in which Hispanic or African America voters are a majority, a type of ethnic and racial gerrymandering.
1
Interesting how the writer takes for granted the votes of the four lefitst politicians on the SCOTUS.
Such is precisely the problem; we all know how they will vote. Regardless of what the law may actually say, they will "interpret" it so as to uniformly come down on the side of the Democrats.
While it's highly unlikely that the Constitution speaks to this issue -- if it did, it would have spoken a long time ago, as when Phil Burton gerrymandered CA with malice aforethought -- we KNOW how RBG and her three leftist comrades will vote. Because they are NOT judges, but politicians.
There is simply no way to take politics out of an inherently political undertaking. We tried it in NJ, but the nutty college professors were hired to draw the lines effected a political gerrymander of their own. As long as the populations are relatively equal, there is simply no neutral, constitutionally-based provisions one can apply.
If you want a parliamentary system of proportionate voting, fine. But as long as we have single (or dual) member districts and Dems cluster together in tightly packed knots, it will be virtually impossible to get proportionality, and never consistently.
But if you really want to make districting fairer, stop counting immigrants for representational purposes. Only citizens should be counted.
Such is precisely the problem; we all know how they will vote. Regardless of what the law may actually say, they will "interpret" it so as to uniformly come down on the side of the Democrats.
While it's highly unlikely that the Constitution speaks to this issue -- if it did, it would have spoken a long time ago, as when Phil Burton gerrymandered CA with malice aforethought -- we KNOW how RBG and her three leftist comrades will vote. Because they are NOT judges, but politicians.
There is simply no way to take politics out of an inherently political undertaking. We tried it in NJ, but the nutty college professors were hired to draw the lines effected a political gerrymander of their own. As long as the populations are relatively equal, there is simply no neutral, constitutionally-based provisions one can apply.
If you want a parliamentary system of proportionate voting, fine. But as long as we have single (or dual) member districts and Dems cluster together in tightly packed knots, it will be virtually impossible to get proportionality, and never consistently.
But if you really want to make districting fairer, stop counting immigrants for representational purposes. Only citizens should be counted.
1
Don't count on Roberts. He's partisan through and through.
1
Right now, we are awarding political representation based on the size of an area’s population, regardless of the residents' legal status. An area whose only residents are all citizens could have the same representation as an area with large numbers of illegal immigrants. Since illegal immigrants are not supposed to be voting, we should not be counting them for the purpose of drawing the boundaries of voting districts.
3
Yes, and the problem exists with incarcerated people as well. They are counted in the census in the place where they are incarcerated, though their right to vote (if any) is based in the place where they lived before (or will live after) incarceration.
The same kind of algorithms that can draw electoral districts for maximum partisan advantage, while avoiding already unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, can draw electoral districts that result in representation approximating overall voter preference during the preceding 10 years, while still respecting significant "communities of interest" in a state. Not only can sophisticated algorithms draw one such map, they can draw many, leaving plenty for politicians or, better, non-partisan commissions to choose among based on factors not recognized and included in the programming. If politicians do the choosing there would still be room for seeking partisan advantage, but in terms of potentially persuadable future voters not those already locked in as historically persuaded. One need not remove every last partisan consideration, in pursuit of some illusory community of saints, to restore the ideals of our representational democracy.
36
"Communities of interest" is a code word for ethnic and racial gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors except population density. Among the factors that should be ignored are race, ethnicity, income, and previous voting histories.
2
Obviously this entire thing is attacking Republicans. How about along with this we stop Democrats "gerrymandering" with the use of entitlements and importation? They're plainly trying to buy votes. I mean who wouldn't vote for a political party offering people free stuff or letting them skirt our border laws? Under Obama, the democrats were positioning themselves to import massive waves of next generation voters. I'm all for immigration, we're built on that, but we have to be taking in people that genuinely, desperately WANT to actually be here and become American. Anything less in dangerous to all of us
2
Interesting that you assume all immigrants will vote democratic. Oh, wait, your president called them all rapists and drug dealers. Yeah, you're probably right...
Also, tax cuts are a "giveaway", too. They just happen to cost us more.
Also, tax cuts are a "giveaway", too. They just happen to cost us more.
3
Republican mantra silliness. Especially when it is the Republicans who are promising the most "free stuff" to the wealthy and corporations. And promising lands free of immigrants, gays, non-Christians, heck even free of Democrats - or at least any Democratic power - if possible. Just vote your fear and we'll take care of the rest.
5
By Free Stuff you mean Corporate and Agri-business handouts??
One could argue allowing a continuation of gerrymandering could in essence allow single party dominance across the entire nation, single party tyranny, and the elimination of any effectiveness of the first amendment or the ability to vote out officials that the population does not want to see reelected.
Furthermore, as in North Carolina, a gerrymandered super-majority eliminates the checks and balances between the government branches themselves with veto-proof majorities in the legislature and the ability then to enact laws that erode/hamper/eliminate judges the Judicial branch. Essentially the breakdown of the intended checks and balances in government itself starting from extreme partisan gerrymandering.
Furthermore, as in North Carolina, a gerrymandered super-majority eliminates the checks and balances between the government branches themselves with veto-proof majorities in the legislature and the ability then to enact laws that erode/hamper/eliminate judges the Judicial branch. Essentially the breakdown of the intended checks and balances in government itself starting from extreme partisan gerrymandering.
173
Let us remember two things:
1. Carl Rove worked to create a 'permanent Republican majority' through gerrymandering.
2. In the last three elections Democratic votes for members of the House have exceeded Republican one, yet the House remains firmly in the hands of the Republicans.
It's not really a Republic when democracy at the legislative selection level is denied.
1. Carl Rove worked to create a 'permanent Republican majority' through gerrymandering.
2. In the last three elections Democratic votes for members of the House have exceeded Republican one, yet the House remains firmly in the hands of the Republicans.
It's not really a Republic when democracy at the legislative selection level is denied.
6
In the last three elections Democratic votes for members of the House have exceeded Republican one, yet the House remains firmly in the hands of the Republicans.
===============
Not true. Republicans have gotten more total Congressional votes in both the 2014 and 2016 elections.
https://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-h...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-cong...
===============
Not true. Republicans have gotten more total Congressional votes in both the 2014 and 2016 elections.
https://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-h...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-cong...
Anyone who thinks that Gorsuch was nominated for any other reason than to assure right-wing dominance over the next 30 years is blind or naive. A White House crammed with lobbyists and a democratic process that has become a joke shows that the US has become another banana republic in he style of the ones it used to support in the time of the Cold War
35
Once in a while something good actually comes out of the GOP dominated Supreme Court and to achieve an end to gerrymandering would be something great that this court would receive the accolades of future Americans for many generations- unless they just think it's completely idiotic that it was tolerated so long.
Now is we could also do something about the state of N. Dakota having equal representation as California in the senate, get campaign finance reform and abolish the electoral college, we might actually bring democracy to America!
Now is we could also do something about the state of N. Dakota having equal representation as California in the senate, get campaign finance reform and abolish the electoral college, we might actually bring democracy to America!
9
Good luck trying to eliminate the Electoral College. It will require a Constitutional Amendment and none of the smaller population states will ever approve such an amendment.
1
In Texas we had our progressive city, Austin, split into five distrixts drawn so we are represented by four Republicans and one Democrat. This democrat, Lloyd Doggett, has been targeted for years with Republicans attempting to draw districts he couldn't win ( mostly by putting him in majority Latino districts) in order to racialize the parties. Doggett is the last white Democrat in the texas house delegation. This is an attempt to make the Republican party the White party and Democrats the Not White party. Doggett so far keeps winning. Ha Ha. The attempt is one of the most egregious subversions of the Voting Rights Act as well as decency
105
Don’t forget Beto O’Rourke in El Paso and Gene Green in Houston! That said, I totally agree with your broader point. Barred by the Supreme Court from eliminating African American and Latino districts, the GOP instead eliminated as many non-minority-led, historically Democratic districts as possible. That’s how my urban Houston neighborhood ended up in Texas 7 “represented” by John Culberson, champion of 27-lane highways and enemy of urban light rail. Texas has 36 representatives in Congress-- 11 Democrats and 25 Republicans. With the exception of O’Rourke, Green, and Doggett (all 3 elected in majority-Latino districts), the Texas Democratic delegation is 100% minority. The Republican delegation? – 23 Anglo men, 1 Anglo woman, and 1 African American man (Will Hurd, elected in a majority-Latino district). In addition to consolidating Republican control without risking reversal under the Voting Rights Act, the GOP gerrymandered maps have the added “benefit” of creating the impression that in Texas the Democratic Party is not a party for Anglos. This is a strategy, not an accident.
1
Numerical Illiteracy is the Legacy of the Robert's Court; unlikely to change with the addition of Gorsuch, because he is illegitimate and As Such represents a further erosion of Law & it's vital role in underpinning Democracy.
3
I have a home in Ohio's 7th congressional district. Every time I check, it seems, it's in a new congressional district. Take a look at the map -- the Ohio 7th stretches from nearly the lake, snakes around Wooster, and extends past Coshocton, nearly half the height of the state. My particular bit resembles the tip of a Mandelbrot fractal. Someone is drawing lines deliberately to include or exclude precise addresses. Unsurprisingly, I always end up in a district where my vote wouldn't matter.
41
Here's an idea....the Supreme Court should make a rule stating that the partisan allocation of voters within any given district must bear some resemblance to the partisan balance of the state as a whole.
For example, if a state is roughly 50/50 between the two parties, no district should have more than a 60/40 split in either direction. If a state is normally 60/40 in favor of party A, then districts would have to be somewhere between 70/30 and 50/50.
For example, if a state is roughly 50/50 between the two parties, no district should have more than a 60/40 split in either direction. If a state is normally 60/40 in favor of party A, then districts would have to be somewhere between 70/30 and 50/50.
7
You idea is a start but a 50:50 state can still be gerrymandered into a 60:40 split on elected officials by gerrymandering. Try the math. Then go to narrowing the computer generated voter split into a smaller ratio. A 70:30 voter split can be gerrymandered even more so.
Ironically, that would still be gerrymandering; if a state is overall 60/40 in favor of party A, and so all the districts are between 50/50 and 70/30, then party A is likely to win every district, or nearly so. This is less objectionable than a minority party drawing districts to favor themselves, but it's still undesirable.
1
More proof that the Republicans will resort to any tactic to remain in power, especially racism. And it is incredible that the concept of one person, one vote was only codified into law in 1962.
24
That's laughable. Racism is all that democrats deal in now, well that and sexism and every other ism that comes to mind.
2
Old Arizonans still resent Baker Vs Carr. They liked it when "cows had more votes than people," as they put it.
1
If only the Supreme Court wasn't nakedly partisan, we could expect a decision in the interests of the nation instead of the kingmakers who decide who gets nominated. Politicians in robes, nothing more.
22
Exactly, AJ. Unelected politicans in robes, appointed for their partisan and religious opinions, for LIFE.
4
Perhaps the issue is not gerrymandering as an absolute, objective, litmus test. Perhaps the test should be whether it is possible to draw a different map that results in fewer wasted votes. (Perhaps a map with fewer wasted votes and fewer edges in the geometry of the districts.)
If it is possible to draw a map that is less gerrymandered than another, it is hard to justify the map that is more gerrymandered.
If it is possible to draw a map that is less gerrymandered than another, it is hard to justify the map that is more gerrymandered.
6
You can rest assured the the opinion from the justices on the right will include some form "liberty" in their argument. Who knows, gerrymandered districts may be people too!, just like corporations!
18
I have this naive hope that the Supreme Court, both the conservatives and liberals will agree that gerrymandering is unconstitutional irrespective of which party does it. .
302
I had the same hope for the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby rulings. Instead, the conservative majority made up a whole new class of "citizen" and decided that separation of church and state, despite being in the Constitution that they all claim such unswerving fealty to, is not really something we have to do.
You're right - it was naive. And likely is this time as well.
You're right - it was naive. And likely is this time as well.
49
Sadly, I have to agree. The Republicans have sealed their power for decades by stealing the Supreme Court seat from Garland.
1
...Neil Gorsuch?
Regardless of the outcome of this case (although I still hope the SCOTUS gets it right and outlaws gerrymandering) we need a National, Non-partisan Districting Commission to redefine the boundaries of all congressional districts based upon the 2020 census. (or prior to it, based on the 2010 census, if practical)
45
I completely agree with you, Herb. As a Canadian i terested in US politics, I have been astounded looking at the maps of US voting boundaries, with shapes so contorted that the only explanation for them appears to be gerrymandering. The Canadian political system, while like all other democracies is imperfect, has avoided this problem by denying government the power to determine electoral boundaries. At the federal level, Elections Canada is an independent, non-partisan body responsible for overseeing national elections, including not just the drawing and updating of electoral boundaries on the basis of the national census, but also the hiring and training of election returning officers who verify voter eligibility (with the same eligibility and identification rules set nationally by Parliament) and manage the counting of the vote. Each province has its own independent body (Elections Ontario, Elections Saskatchewan, etc.) that has equivalent powers and responsibilities for provincial elections. In addition, at both national and provincial levels, each political party has the right to have a volunteer present in each voting district ( which we call "ridings") as the votes are being counted and that volunteer can challenge the attribution of any ballot that is unclear or otherwise "spoiled". I participated as such a volunteer in our 2015 national election and saw for myself how this process works effectively in action to a ensure fair, accurate count.
2
pamela...i already included an 'elections canada' attachment explaining this point in another comment. ontario harmonized its ridings with the feds not so many years ago.
1
An excellent point. Letting state legislatures do it is asking for mischief. This is one instance in which local control is dangerously tempting to those inclined to cheat.
Gerrymandering should be outlawed and only a non-political system should be in place based upon population, not party
246
well, it's already done in a non partisan way in many/most real democracies.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&doc...
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&doc...
1
The Electoral College must be replaced by a direct national popular vote as well.
1
I would imagine that the democrats will change their tune if and when a democrat looses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College vote as was the case with Bill Clinton.
1
Gorsuch's vote is what will be watched. He was deceptively evasive in his hearings and this will tell if he is truly a voice for the Constitution.
12
If Scotus decides for the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, what will the remedy be for legislators? Lower courts have already directed the North Carolina legislature to redraw its acutely partisan Congressional districts, as was Florida. The same outcome could apply to Wisconsin.
But that may not be a satisfactory result. SCOTUS could strike a blow for fairness by establishing a new principle to guide legislative redistricting activities, similar to Baker v Carr: perhaps a reasonable standard based on geographic common sense -- districts must be generally contiguous and symmetrical with borders reflective of population distribution, not political party or ethnic or racial makeup.
But that may not be a satisfactory result. SCOTUS could strike a blow for fairness by establishing a new principle to guide legislative redistricting activities, similar to Baker v Carr: perhaps a reasonable standard based on geographic common sense -- districts must be generally contiguous and symmetrical with borders reflective of population distribution, not political party or ethnic or racial makeup.
152
Except that the clustering of progressive voters in urban area will produce a result markedly similar to deliberate gerrymandering. We have computer programs now that can identify block-by-block partisan affiliation. We should use them to create districts in which the parties are as nearly equally represented as is feasible geographically. In urban/suburban/rural settings, districts radiating like spokes from the urban centers, through the suburbs and into the hinterlands may be the answer. Rather than the center being overwhelmingly Democratic and the rural areas overwhelmingly Republican, radial districts could strike a balance in which more competitive races would go to the better candidates rather than the candidate of the dominant party.
Contiguity and simple shapes are not necessarily a good approach everywhere.
Contiguity and simple shapes are not necessarily a good approach everywhere.
There is what I believe to be a very simple solution to redistricting. A computer programmed with all of the population data and with parameters that natural boarders (counties, cities, rivers, highways, etc) be utilized develops four choices by starting from the north, south, east and west. The legislative body then gets to vote on one of these. This would eliminate all the crazy shaped districts and do away with any bias whether it be race based or politically based.
22
Although I am reluctant to hand another aspect of our lives over to computers. I believe you are totally correct. As I commented elsewhere, it is not beyond our ability to do this, it is just beyond the will (and patriotism) of our elected officials.
3
My state (Arizona) has implemented something like this, as has CA. Just last term, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the system.
1
But will that population data include illegal aliens, who are NOT American citizens?
1
With the supreme court back to leaning RW you can count that gerrymandering will get the OK, count on it.
22
A Supreme Court justice once remarked in an obscenity case, "I know it when I see it." I wish they could use the same plain speaking and thinking about gerrymandering.
90
This article leaves out crucial information. What is the name of the Wisconsin case, and when will the Supreme Court hear oral arguments? Will the case be decided by June of this year, or will a decision be put off until next year? Couldn't a link to the Wisconsin decision have been provided - since so many other links are provided, it would seem trivially easy to do that. And if the timetable of the Supreme court action is not known yet, the article should have said so.
40
The link to the court decision is in the third graf.
While the Supreme Court is required to consider the case — unlike ordinary suits, redistricting suits go straight to the court after one hearing — it has not yet said whether it will schedule a full hearing or simply issue a written opinion. For now, all we know is that the court has to consider it, and it’s likely to be sometime this year or early next year.
The court also could simply uphold or overturn the three-judge panel without any comment at all.
While the Supreme Court is required to consider the case — unlike ordinary suits, redistricting suits go straight to the court after one hearing — it has not yet said whether it will schedule a full hearing or simply issue a written opinion. For now, all we know is that the court has to consider it, and it’s likely to be sometime this year or early next year.
The court also could simply uphold or overturn the three-judge panel without any comment at all.
23
The case it Whitford vs. Gill. It looks like it will come to the court's next session
1
I too think Mr. Wines should have named the case (Whitford v Gill).
1
The 1965 Voting Rights' Act mandates gerrymandering to create majority minority districts. So the Democrats are already the beneficiaries of unjustifiable gerrymandering.
3
Gerrymandering is unjustifiable no matter who does it.
I am not quite so sure the Supreme Court is going to step in here and create a nationwide standard. They might tell Wisconsin its map goes overboard but that is unique to one state. The rub here is that a district in four years can go from being very Republican to not so much. Case in point, GA-6. And you know the proponents of the WI map will bring that up. Politics and elections are not static and as a result creating a standard based on ever changing circumstances is impossible.
1
If you read the details of the Wisconsin test case, the trick is that the plaintiffs DO have a simple, objective system that will tell you if gerrymandering has occurred and can be applied anywhere.
The catch is that it only works in hindsight—you can tell if a past election was gerrymandered, but you can never be 100% sure about future elections. You can estimate that with opinion polls, though. Overall it'll be a huge step forward, if the Supreme Court rules in favor.
The catch is that it only works in hindsight—you can tell if a past election was gerrymandered, but you can never be 100% sure about future elections. You can estimate that with opinion polls, though. Overall it'll be a huge step forward, if the Supreme Court rules in favor.
1
All well and good, and I do hope the Court strikes it down. But as the article noted, even under the worst case scenario, Democrats are still doomed in the House by geography. Democrats are packed into (coastal) urban districts and ring up the score there. If Democrats want to control the House again, young, college-educated liberals who left the Midwest and South for cities like Boston and LA need to move back to their hometowns. I recognize that it's a tough ask.
2
Do not worry; the millennial destination cities are getting so expensive that people will have to move to the "heartland'. Are they ready for their own children?
4
You said Democrats moved from the Midwest and are packed into cities like Boston and LA. You suggested they move back and that it is "a tough ask."
Well, for example, Chicago, Minneapolis and Milwaukee aren't exactly "a tough ask."
Have you ever been to these wonderful cities?
As an aside, frankly, I'm getting tired of the Midwest as being described as "flyover country." I believe the cities of the Midwest are quite sophisticated with winter weather being the only drawback. Plus, the people are nicer and surveys bear this out.
Well, for example, Chicago, Minneapolis and Milwaukee aren't exactly "a tough ask."
Have you ever been to these wonderful cities?
As an aside, frankly, I'm getting tired of the Midwest as being described as "flyover country." I believe the cities of the Midwest are quite sophisticated with winter weather being the only drawback. Plus, the people are nicer and surveys bear this out.
3
Lechrist, you'll notice that my location is listed as the Midwest (and I notice yours is Southern California). I have never lived anywhere but the Midwest (and I should note that within the Midwest, I have lived in both urban and rural areas), except for ~seven months in D.C. And yes, I do enjoy those cities; I would even like to move to the Twin Cities one day.
You should also have noted that in my original comment, I put the word "coastal" in parentheses. Some young people are moving to cities like Chicago, but overall, Chicago (and Illinois as a whole) lost population in 2015 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-population-.... Definitely the "hot cities" to move to right now are on the coasts, but there are exceptions, like Austin, Denver, and Boulder.
Quite frankly, political scientists agree: Democratic voters need to stop packing into urban districts--whether it's in LA or Chicago--and need to spread out a little more, even if it is in Surburbia. The Times has mentioned this in passing several times, including this article, but they did have a more comprehensive article months ago. If I recall the title correctly, it was something like "Move to Iowa, young people."
You should also have noted that in my original comment, I put the word "coastal" in parentheses. Some young people are moving to cities like Chicago, but overall, Chicago (and Illinois as a whole) lost population in 2015 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-population-.... Definitely the "hot cities" to move to right now are on the coasts, but there are exceptions, like Austin, Denver, and Boulder.
Quite frankly, political scientists agree: Democratic voters need to stop packing into urban districts--whether it's in LA or Chicago--and need to spread out a little more, even if it is in Surburbia. The Times has mentioned this in passing several times, including this article, but they did have a more comprehensive article months ago. If I recall the title correctly, it was something like "Move to Iowa, young people."
1
Very interested to see the outcome of this. If ever there was a time for us to remove the various tools that politicians have created to help them plunder and wreck the system, it is now. Gerrymandering has ruined elections from local to national and has been the primary enabler of our current toxic level of partisanship in congress. Time to remove this destructive tactic once and for all.
150
This article importantly discusses the nature of the gerrymander problem. The Republicans have out-done the Democrats; and when we factor in the Citizens United decision that gives corporations "free speech" to spend as necessary to communicate their views, the rise of Trump becomes the fulfillment of a decades old plan. Boy what a relief it would be if the Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiffs. I am especially intrigued by the argument that Gerrymandering denies first amendment protections for free speech. I find the argument very compelling; but will Gorsuch?
1
Here's my prediction - the Supreme Court, with it's newly stolen seat, will decide that if it benefits Republicans it's fine, but if it benefits Democrats it's unconstitutional. Why should we expect anything different from a court the Republicans have turned into just another partisan battleground.
Their "team" will win, 5-4. The American people be damned.
Their "team" will win, 5-4. The American people be damned.
198
Sadly, I suspect you will be right. My best hope is that the Supreme Court's decision actually turns out to backfire for Republicans. When you gerrymander to obtain more seats, you gain the majority of seats in a state but run the risk that if prevailing voter attitudes move even a few points against you, you could lose all of your seats. You can bet if that happens in 2018 or 2020, Republicans would start kicking and screaming about the unfairness of gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering in favor of any political, racial, or other interest should be outlawed once and for all by amending the US Constitution. In this high-tech age, mathematicians have already derived formulas for creating legislative districts based on the most efficient grouping of voters around population centers. We need a constitutional amendment that mandates the use of such objective instruments.
385
I totally agree with Ken L.
1
How? After every election the districts would have to be looked at and lines changed depending on the party turnout of the elections. By definition, that would be redrawing the lines based on past elections as opposed to future ones.
Computer models are no less biased than the algorithms of their programmers.
1
I would much rather see gerrymandering based on political party than what we have all too often, sanctioned by the voting rights advocates: gerrymandering based on race/ethnicity. How can we ever expect to have assimilation and a "melting pot" if we elect representatives based on their race/ethnicity.
Check out Luis Gutierrez' district in Chicago. They went block by block, house by house, to draw a district with nothing but Latinos of various nationalities. The result is two barely connected "snakes" of area.
https://gutierrez.house.gov/about/our-district
Check out Luis Gutierrez' district in Chicago. They went block by block, house by house, to draw a district with nothing but Latinos of various nationalities. The result is two barely connected "snakes" of area.
https://gutierrez.house.gov/about/our-district
2
The same with Congressman Christ Smith (R) district in Central NJ for white affluent only voters. Distinct areas. Distinct concerns. Only commonality is majority white.
5
I wonder which gerrymander happened first. I have seen that sometimes a district is gerrymandered to contain Latinos, another to contain Blacks, and one containing mostly whites is what ends up left in the middle.
The whole system is broken. We need to devise a way to draw boundaries so districts contain Americans -- without regard to race/ethnicity/party.
How?
The whole system is broken. We need to devise a way to draw boundaries so districts contain Americans -- without regard to race/ethnicity/party.
How?
2
I just checked New Jersey and it looks like their districting makes a lot of sense. The state overall is 72.6% white, 14.8% Black, 19.7% Hispanic.
Chris Smith's 4th District is 85.3%/7.8%/7.6%
3rd District to the south is 85.6%/8.8%/3.8%
6th District to the NE is 67.5%/16.8%/11.7%
12th District to the north is 75.4%/11.7%/5.5%
It would take a really unnatural act of drawing district boundaries to not have the Districts be overwhelmingly white given that is the make up of the state overall and the communities in the region.
Chris Smith's 4th District is 85.3%/7.8%/7.6%
3rd District to the south is 85.6%/8.8%/3.8%
6th District to the NE is 67.5%/16.8%/11.7%
12th District to the north is 75.4%/11.7%/5.5%
It would take a really unnatural act of drawing district boundaries to not have the Districts be overwhelmingly white given that is the make up of the state overall and the communities in the region.
1
The elephant in the room now is Gorsuch. He is a close friend of Kennedy, and could very likely influence his opinion, so it could be 5-4 against democracy. Gorsuch answered virtually no questions in his putative evaluation in the Senate. No one really knows how really conservative he is. Sure he says he's principled, although some of his opinions seem very partisan and religious. We'll see. If the plaintiffs lose, so does America.
121
I do hope you know that we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic made up of 50 independent nations who banded together for a common defense and a common market. Elections are reserved for the states to run, and there is no place at all for the feds.
2
If you all in the red states are so independent why do you demand that the Federal government spend more money in your state than you pay in Federal taxes? As a californian, I tired of seeing my federal taxes go to states who will not take care of their own.
4
That said, Kennedy seems in the past to have been fairly concerned about the impact of gerrymandering. And I'm guessing Roberts is too, since he is concerned about the legitimacy of government.
1