How a Wisconsin Case Before Justices Could Reshape Redistricting

Would Republicans hold as many districts without engineering this extreme level of gerrymandering? No, they would not. Which, in simple terms, means they've had to resort to gaming the system to retain power, rather than allowing the democratic process go forward fairly, and accept the consequences: they lack popular support. If the roles were reversed, and Democrats ginned up phony boundaries to keep a majority of voters from having a decisive voice in their own affairs, would the Republicans be making the same impassioned arguments they are today? No, they would not. They would object just as fiercely as the Democrats. Hopefully the Court will consider that fact, and expose this cynical grab for power for what it is, a convenient subversion of democracy by a losing party, purely for political gain.

Mr. Wines identified the keys to this case: Justice Kennedy and a workable formula. If the Court's liberals devise a workable formula for states to follow, they can get Kennedy's vote and end this unfair gerrymandering.

If the Supreme Court fails to act, the tables will turn one day against the GOP and will likely never turn back, given the changing demographics of the US. The tide of growing Democratic urban centers, shrinking rural populations, expanding diversity, aging out of the Silent Majority and increased voting by today's Millennials is coming in. And the unlikely coalition of the Wall Street, evangelicals and white nationalists is destined to explode the electoral map well before then. Crazy Campaign Trump simply hastens the reckoning.

People routinely go against what is good for the country to preserve what is good for them. Justices fall prey to the same moral failings as the rest of us, and unfortunately 5 of those sitting were put there - one of them quite unethically - by the team that is currently in power and fighting to stay there. With every day that passes, my belief that we can save ourselves from this idiocy fades further...

If the courts don't uphold what's going in Wisconsin, then how could they have supported Citizens United? It would be contradictory to not let money influence how political maps are drawn and not allow for corporations to be people who help in the restructuring of political districts. My point? After the right wins this one: I mean like how much more political strangulation would they ask for? Clarence? Come on, don't fail them now.

It's funny---and at the same time depressing---to hear Republican hacks tie themselves in knots trying to justify partisan gerrymandering. First they say Democrats do it too. Then they say the constitution does not explicitly forbid the practice. Never once do they admit that it is grossly unfair, unprincipled and undemocratic. Which, come to think of it, should be the new motto of the Republican Party: "We don't care it it's grossly unfair, unprincipled, and undemocratic, as long as it keeps us getting reelected."

What is really ridiculous about this case is that not only has it been going on for so long, but that it keeps getting stays keeping the gerrymandered districting. The defendant has continued to claim (and been supported) that it is too close to the next election, that it's too difficult and disruptive to the election process to remedy before then. In other words, we need to keep on cheating the system until all our appeals are exhausted or we get a favorable judgement. Even if the conservative SCOTUS somehow miraculously reaches a decision that the gerrymandering must be rectified, (I'm taking bets it won't) they probably won't put it in force until after at least one more election cycle.

Any person opposed to stopping gerrymandering, and legally instilling a system where ONE person gets ONE valid vote, is then opposed to the true spirit of Democracy. Just as our national "electoral college" MUST be changed or dissolved, so must gerrymandering be equalized or dissolved, in order for we the people to continue to strive for that better union for ourselves and our posterity. Those who are arguing against equalizing or removing gerrymandering are those who benefit most from increasing the silencing of the opposing party or parties. Democracy and thus the USA can not stand up nor for those who would cheat the American citizen from his or her vote and it's validity. This is why the Supreme Court needs to step up and step in order to protect our Constitution.

Legally, the state of Wisconsin can look forward to victory i.e. keeping their maps intact, because the swing voter in SCOTUS, Justice Kennedy, is on record that SCOTUS has no role to play in allegedly-partisan state maps. Sure he fidgeted, made sad noises last time around, think-out loud, wishing for a sure-fire test to rule otherwise. But he knows as well as anyone, none exists and none ever will, because it’s nigh impossible. Count SCOTUS out under such bleak circumstances. Heck, they won’t even punt. They’ll kick it back where it belongs, Wisconsin. Bottom line: Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, tossing the case back to the states. And that should be that. Now let’s look at the other, more practical solution. Districts have no business being concentrated Democrat. It’s a loser, has-been party. If districts are backing them in packs, then they deserve what they get: moral, local victories, little else. Not to mention, being shunned by new movers, who’d much rather prefer locales with real clout. They really ought to tilt GOP, and in parallel, accelerate the demise of the Dems. Or better yet, ask for new leaders, a remake of the party that abandons obsolete causes like abortion and immigration. Heck, even completely reconcile with GOP positions, but differentiate on execution, where to date the GOP have still long ways to go. It’s a vastly different world post-Trump, ain’t no looking to SCOTUS to fix. The faster Dems come to grips with this new reality, the better.

Voting districts should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors expect population density. Political party affiliation, race, ethnicity, past voting patterns shouldn’t count. As long as people are involved in the process, voting district maps will be manipulated. “Nonpartisan committees” aren’t the solution. The touted California Citizens Redistricting Commission, for example, charter is designed to prevent conservative gerrymandering while permitting liberal gerrymandering. Its “rank-ordered criteria” lists compliance with the Constitution’s “one person, one vote” requirement, but it also lists ensuring “equal opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice” and minimizing the division of “communities of interest” as criteria. It defines a “community of interest” as “a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” Arizona’s Proposition 106 also charters its redistricting committee to “respect communities of interests.” In other words, the bipartisan redistricting commission charters gives lip service to the “one person, one vote” mantra while specifically requiring racial, ethnic, social and economic gerrymandering.

The Court's decision in Bush v Gore showed that pragmatism can hold sway over many of these Justices' decisions when the stakes are high enough. Hopefully the impossible to ignore implications for true democratic rule will sway the current Court to take action. If so, this ruling might have more impact on the political future of this nation than Citizen's United. Given the precipice which our political system finds itself, I pray that the highest court recognizes both its opportunity and obligation to do what it can to ensure the democratic principles which the Constitution was enshrined to uphold.

Does anyone really trust the "Citizens United" Supreme Court to do the right thing? This could end very, very, badly....

This is an 18th century problem. No modern, earnest, would-be democracy would adopt first-past-the-post, single-member district legislative bodies. Even if we did manage to kill off gerrymandering entirely, urban voters will always be disenfranchised in the House, and urban states will always be disenfranchised in the Senate. We live in a country where 585,000 Wyoming citizens get two senators and a congressman, 39.25 million Californians get two senators, and 681,000 Washingtonians get neither senators nor congressmen. This is not what a republic is supposed to look like.

Bust gerrymandering or gerrymandering will bust us.

Gerrymandering today uses sophisticated analytics to protect seats for members of the dominant party. I expect our highly partisan Supreme Court will protect the party of the Conservatives. That decision along with Citizens United will transform our nation into an oligarchy.

As long as people are involved in the process, voting district maps will be manipulated. Voting districts should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors expect population density. The factors that should be ignored include incumbency, political party affiliation, race, ethnicity, and past voting patterns shouldn’t count. “Nonpartisan committees” aren’t the solution. The touted California Citizens Redistricting Commission, for example, charter is designed to prevent conservative gerrymandering while permitting liberal gerrymandering. Its “rank-ordered criteria” lists compliance with the Constitution’s “one person, one vote” requirement, but it also lists ensuring “equal opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice” and minimizing the division of “communities of interest” as criteria. It defines a “community of interest” as “a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” Arizona’s Proposition 106 also charters its redistricting committee to “respect communities of interests.” In other words, the bipartisan redistricting commission charters gives lip service to the “one person, one vote” mantra while specifically requiring racial, ethnic, social and economic gerrymandering.

Honest democracy, honest debates, and honest application of equal rights under the law are so old-fashioned. Today's GOP base is not capable of democracy. If only the GOP could elect a law and order Putinesque leader... Oh, wait, they've got that covered except for Trump's inept leadership and failing MAGA platform. Take Repeal and Replace portion of MAGA. There are 49 Senators (and one President) who keep trying to jam through an unpopular, partisan and uninspiring repeal effort when a majority of Americans want universal coverage at an affordable cost. Hey, GOP, try some incremental improvements to the ACA. We want affordable healthcare and honest democracy.

Does anyone really think that a Republican majority on the Court is going to erase the Republican Party's scheme for retaining power?

Anyone expecting the Roberts court to act in a politically balanced manner is delusional. After all, this is the court that has given us a plutocracy/oligarch by deliberately ignoring decades of precedent on campaign finance, with the conservative justices refusing to acknowledge the monster they created. So, now the conservative majority can double down and give us a dictatorship under the control of one political party. Anyone willing to bet that it won't happen?

Good match - a partisan case for a partisan court (at least a court picked to be as partisan as possible).

The Republicans pushed through a horrible idealogue in the case if Gorsuch. Government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich has been secured. It will be a bad year for the country.

Is there a case this term about stealing Supreme Court appointments?

The silence of the liberals about Maryland's Democratic gerrymandering shows that, like the rest of the "principles" bandied about, this anti-gerrymandering crusade is just one more example of partisan talking points. Sorry, children, until you apply your "principles" across the board, I will ignore your whining.

One real possibility is not mentioned here: the Supremes could decide that this gerrymandering is unconstitutional without offering a remedy, thus kicking the ball back to the legislature with a requirement that it be fixed to avoid violation of the Constitution.

So many facets of modern life are now shaped by data analytics, I can't believe this technology can't be used to create fair and equatable voting districts. It should be an obvious solution. We need to demand that districting be a service to the citizens not a paean to career politicians and their money masters.

To the author and interested others, I highly recommend this highly relevant study published Sept. 28, 2017 by Malia Jones, Ph D, from the University of Wisconsin Population Lab: "How Our Elections Analysis Became A Supreme Court Question: Unpacking The Demographic Nuances Of A Brief In The Wisconsin Gerrymandering Lawsuit" https://www.wiscontext.org/how-our-elections-analysis-became-supreme-cou... Since 2010, Wisconsin has proven the unfortunate laboratory for the ideas of ALEC who, when successful here, promulgate the same agendas across the country to devastating effect.

What our oligarchy failed to completely achieve with Citizen's United will be accomplished when (if?) SCOTUS allows this level of gerrymandering. There is no longer "of, for, and by the people" nor the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" underpinning the Federal government nor most State governments. SCOTUS now has in their ability to destroy any semblance of the USA being a democracy -- and sadly, SCOTUS may do just this in a 5-4 rulling with an illegitimate Justice holding sway.

If SCOTUS allows partisan gerrymandering to continue unchecked, especially after gutting the Voting Rights Act, the United States will no longer be able to pretend it is a functional democracy. We are at this moment contending with a president elected by the Electoral College, an outdated concession to southern states who demanded a disproportionate voice in our country's lawmaking, who lost the popular vote by a large margin. Wherever possible Republicans continue to shamelessly gerrymander and create obstacles to prevent voting by non-Republicans. Democrats are not innocent on gerrymandering, however Republicans are working a coordinated national plan to disenfranchise whoever they need to in order to stay in power. This is not the nation of freedoms that our founders envisioned.

There's another problem with presenting a multitude of metrics. With one metric, the decision is binary. Yes or no. With a variety of metrics though, even a ruling against gerrymandering will likely kick the choice back to the legislatures. In effect, states will be required to measure and eliminate partisanship in district selection but they won't be directed how to do it. That would be the conservative compromise. As you might imagine, the horse race is doomed to begin again in some different form as a result. What we really need is an non-judicial, extra-legal solution. Popular referendums perhaps. We need some mechanism to de-politicize the political map lines. Otherwise, we're chasing our own tail.

We pay the bill for being a Republic (res publica or public affair) which can be shaped by politicians and governments to their advantage vs a true democracy where all power is emanating from the people and which leads to the one person - one vote" principle. Gerrymandering is only one manifestation of this res publica vs democracy difference. The fact that about 40 million Californians vote as many representatives into the US Senate as 600 thousand Wyomingites. If we want to change that we need to change the constitution. Good luck with that.

The very notion that this should be fixed by politicians is absurd. Those are the very politicians that rigged voting districts to gain power. To then ask those same very partisan blokes to "fix" what works for them is a joke. There is zero incentive to eliminate it. In Florida we had a constitutional amendment passed by the people to eliminate it and we still had to fight in court to get the GOP to obey our own constitution in that regard. Think those creeps would voluntarily eliminate gerrymandering when they fought so hard to ignore the law in order to continue to do it? I home SCOTUS has enough common sense to understand that simple fact...the bad actors (both sides) have no political incentive to fix it and the people's votes won't get us anyone who will. //

Not clear how the Supreme Court has the right to intervene in the concerns of the State. Also not clear how political party association is a factor in the U.S. Constitution. If you add in "Racial Considerations" into the districts - also not a factor in the U.S. Constitution - why not add in "Age", "Sex" and "Income". Why not just set up a commission that draws the districts "blindly" and starts in one corner of the state and draws districts until it reaches the opposite corner ?

When Walker was first elected in 2010, the first item on his agenda was redistricting and the WI GOP outsourced the job expensively to a Milwaukee law firm. For the WI GOP it was money well spent. Although significantly more votes are cast for Democrats, the WI GOP keeps its majority in the state assembly in Madison. Walker and the WI GOP have since followed a Koch/ALEC checklist to seize almost total control of the state: conservative judges now dominate the state supreme court, the state university system's board of regents is now nearly all Walker appointees, many state administration jobs have become patronage positions rather than civil service jobs, voter ID requirement has been imposed to suppress voter turnout selectively, etc. Starting with Act 10, they first busted teacher and state worker unions, then moved on to make WI a right to work state and weaken private sector unions. Progressives and Democrats have been stunned and horrified at how effectively we have been disenfranchised. Now Trump, Walker, and Paul Ryan have shoved their horrific Foxconn deal down the throats of Wisconsin taxpayers, forcing us to take on $3B of debt to finance absurdly extravagant corporate welfare-- it's a huge scam that all three politicians will use to claim they've created jobs in 2018 and 2020. Notably, in hearings about this initiative, citizens expressed overwhelming opposition and doubt, but we don't matter any longer. Now they can do whatever they want.

Here's an easy solution. Let the districts be drawn however the politicians wish as long as the selection of representatives reflects the popular vote. That enforces one person one vote but also allows for districts to reflect the demographics of the local populations. If districts are drawn and the results do not comply with the one person one vote rule, mandate that the parties through post election "horse trading" assign representatives that do reflect the rule.

Partisan gerrymandering has a long history. However, with todays sophisticated computer programs a political party can decide what representation the people of a state get, and voters choices become irrelevant. We need to end gerrymandering and most of the rank partisanship, the worst of the extremist behavior (especially on the right) will go away because MOST voters want a centrist path. A path that the Democratic party currently offers but which is stifled because gerrymandering and the Electoral College (which also needs to go away) put people in power that the people did not chose.

Redistricting. One reason some of my fellow Wisconsinites did not vote here. They knew they were being had and did not want to participate in Scott Walker's ultimate plan. They also confused voters with conflicting voter ID laws. Hundreds of college students were wrongfully turned away at the polls on election day, for example, and given wrong information. Republicans have corrupted our state in so many ways. But tampering with voting for their favor is probably the lowest in democracy, all democracy. The Supreme Court was born to bring justice. Let it do so for Wisconsin and everywhere in this country.

Gerrymandering is the legally corrupt way of choosing your own voters. We are doomed to many decades of incompetence and corruption if this is allowed to continue, because today's Republicans have proven adept at winning elections, but totally impotent and self-serving as leaders.

Voters should pick their representatives in Congress and at the state level, politicians shouldn't get to pick their voters using gerrymandering. Redistricting should be done by a non-partisan, no-party involvement, committee or neutral computer system.

I will predict that they will uphold the Wisconsin districts. The Supreme Court is fairly unbiased in most of their rulings but are true politicians when political issues come before them and the results depend on the political affiliation of the majority of the court. So, for you folks in Wisconsin, don't count on your vote being counted with this court making the decision.

Every American patriot should be ignoring any decision that involves a vote by the illegal justice, Neil Gorsuch. It's as simple as that.

The United States never has been a democracy and the Republicans are dedicated to making sure it never becomes one. Neil Gorsuch siding with democracy will be as much of a shock to Republican plutocrats (and everyone else) as Earl Warren ruling for civil liberties. That will be a miracle if it happens but that would take the intervention of a benign deity who never yet has shown his/her/its face to modern humanity.

I find myself thinking from time to time that it would be really nice to live in a true democracy - a sad thing for an American to wish for.

Ballots are also being controlled. When I went to vote in an election earlier this year, I had to declare a political party at the door and was only given a ballot with candidates from that party. If I wanted to vote for the best from either party that was not an option. We expect bipartisanship in practice, but we are not allowed to shape it at the booth if desired? American voting is becoming like a sinking boat, you plug one leak and another leak shows up.

Short sighted and myopic Republicans, the Supreme Court will decide that any level of gerrymandering is OK as long as Republicans are ahead. The Citizens United decision, that makes billionaires have more votes than the rest is a strong indication of the elitist decision making that is likely.

The outcome of this case may be the first example of how one man (Mitch McConnell) can single-handedly inflict decades worth of damage on the U.S. political system. His unchecked violation of his oath of office by blocking any hearing for center-left Merrick Garland has led to another knee-jerk conservative justice in Neil Gorsuch, who presumably sees no problem with extreme gerrymandering as long as it benefits the GOP. This, in turn, would lead to an indefinite future of non-representative government as the voices of millions of voters are effectively neutralized through packing and cracking of legislative districts. Such is the ugly state of U.S. politics, as dishonest and power-hungry white men rule the day.

In Canada electoral districts are drawn up by a nonpartisan commission. This makes eminent good sense. Allowing partisan elected officials to draw the maps is an open invitation to gerrymandering. It is foolish to think that elected officials with a partisan interest in the shape of electoral districts will ever subordinate their party's (and their own) self-interest to the public good. It does no good to point out that the egregious distortions that result from gerrymandered districts, which, as in Wisconsin, can provide one party with a majority of seats even though the other party won a majority of votes state-wide, subvert democracy and undermine the legitimacy of the winning party's electoral victory. Politicians who practice gerrymandering care only about controlling the state legislature (or controlling Congress) and won't wake up to the self-destructive consequences of their actions until the people are in revolt or the American democracy is in ruins. It will take the court to correct the problem, if the justices have the courage to rise to the occasion. But if the court is beset by the same partisanship that gives rise to gerrymandering in the first place, then there is no institutional remedy. It that event only the people can work a change, either by electing reformers to office or by so frightening existing officeholders as to make them embrace the needed reform.

Gerrymandering and too much money flushing into politics are the biggest threats to our democracy.

There is no good reason any form of gerrymandering should be upheld. Plug the specific addresses of all eligible voters in a computer, without any tags for party affiliation, gender, race, wealth, etc. Have the computer make the districts as compact and contiguous as possible. Done. Both parties have benefitted from this in the past, and it is time to admit we are all wrong and move forward with a very easy solution. If the court rejects this due to some legal technicality, I will lose much of my limited remaining faith in the legal system.

Sounds like the Supreme Court will be missing a huge opportunity to help put our country back together, by ensuring our votes actually count. They have made horribly bad decisions before, and I supposed this will just be one more nail in the coffin of our so called democracy.

How can the gerrymandering of one political party be fair? I can't imagine the Supreme Court would think it is. Bipartisan mapping of districts is the only answer.

Gerrymandering is wrong. Any one can see it by simply looking at the district map. It is unnatural, odd, and stupid. If we the people cannot tell right from wrong, then we don't deserve democracy. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court has to stand up to deter this political monster.

I fail to understand why voting districts cannot be by geographic area bordered by county, highways, etc. based on population numbers.

Keeping citizens from voting, and keeping any one party in power, permanently, is unconstitutional. I don't know how it could be other wise.

This extreme example of partisanship needs to be remedied. Egregious gerrymandering to perpetuate 'majorities' is ripping this country apart state by state. My concerns are twofold: 1) Kennedy will be afraid to overturn the court's earlier rulings and 2) having worked with federal judges, they fear math - math is all about a black and white answer - and that is too scary for all too many judges. Plus, at the end of the day, they are political appointees put there to fulfill a political agenda. I sincerely hope that math/science/evidence can carry the day, but feeling very skeptical.

If the Supreme Court upholds political redistricting ("gerrymandering", office holders picking their voters instead of voters picking their office holders), then we will be in a permanent condition in which 40% of the vote can win 60% of the seats. That would be the end of democracy in the US. The Supremes can find a way to strike it down if they want to.

I wonder if a mathematician could devise a "fractal test" to identify extreme gerrymandering.

If allowing any individual or group to manipulate the outcome of voting is defined by the court as legal, than what is the purpose of voting?

We are probably on the verge of the birth of a new political party or possibly the birth of twins when it comes to national politics. The current White House occupant is doing his part to hatch a new party and the warring factions in both major parties are doing the same. Now, if the Supreme Court helps all groups by kicking the voting can down the crooked road of politics instead of trying legal statesmanship then we citizens are in for even more political, social, and financial unrest than we are now experiencing.