Interesting piece - moore

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,217
3,345
113

I agree with the authors rejection of the independent state legislature theory, for precisely the reasons he notes. But the problem with his proposed solution (that state courts can invalidate gerrymanders under state constitutions but have to remand to the legislatures to redraw) is that it presents precisely the same problem as the legislature problem. Just as the framers referenced legislative powers in their state constitutional contexts, which include judicial review, so too those judicial powers obviously included remedial powers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. Louis Hawk

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,900
54,053
113

I agree with the authors rejection of the independent state legislature theory, for precisely the reasons he notes. But the problem with his proposed solution (that state courts can invalidate gerrymanders under state constitutions but have to remand to the legislatures to redraw) is that it presents precisely the same problem as the legislature problem. Just as the framers referenced legislative powers in their state constitutional contexts, which include judicial review, so too those judicial powers obviously included remedial powers.
In NC, a remand to the legislature will simply produce the same results with different lines. How about an independent group draws up three maps (or whatever number) and the legislature chooses one? The obvious solution would be to amend the state constitution to make that the standard going forward. Won't ever happen.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,217
3,345
113
In NC, a remand to the legislature will simply produce the same results with different lines. How about an independent group draws up three maps (or whatever number) and the legislature chooses one? The obvious solution would be to amend the state constitution to make that the standard going forward. Won't ever happen.
that, of course, is the other problem. if remand is the only remedy, there is no mechanism to reach an end point, other than perhaps 'running out the clock' under whatever federal law controls (which eventually it does)
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,900
54,053
113
that, of course, is the other problem. if remand is the only remedy, there is no mechanism to reach an end point, other than perhaps 'running out the clock' under whatever federal law controls (which eventually it does)
What the NCGOP legislature has done is approve a map close to the elections. It gets tossed for being obscenely partisan...but it's too close to the election for a remedy so says SCOTUS so elections go forward with an illegal map. They keep their majority and lather, rinse, repeat. They have established a mechanism to create a permanent GOP majority in the state legislature AND the US House in a state that elected a Dem governor in both elections where Trump carried the vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

Titanhawk2

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2011
12,542
5,719
113

I agree with the authors rejection of the independent state legislature theory, for precisely the reasons he notes. But the problem with his proposed solution (that state courts can invalidate gerrymanders under state constitutions but have to remand to the legislatures to redraw) is that it presents precisely the same problem as the legislature problem. Just as the framers referenced legislative powers in their state constitutional contexts, which include judicial review, so too those judicial powers obviously included remedial powers.
Is that what courts do, pick the best option?
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,217
3,345
113
Is that what courts do, pick the best option?
Well, in situations where courts have "drawn the map themselves," I think what they would say they do is craft and mandate a "minimally compliant option" based on the fewest changes from the status quo. Now of course, they usually don't literally draw the maps themselves, but will instead hire their own demographer as a "special master" or "court appointed expert" and issue him/her marching orders.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
29,138
55,228
113
that, of course, is the other problem. if remand is the only remedy, there is no mechanism to reach an end point, other than perhaps 'running out the clock' under whatever federal law controls (which eventually it does)

Interesting article.

Yep. Capable of repetition yet evading review problem.

Other problem is gerrymandered state legislature that do not, in fact, reflect the will of the people. Plus those that have moved to restrict state ballot initiatives, again blocking the will of the people.

Roberts Court should have addressed gerrymandering rather than ducking it. It’s a Constitutional violation that requires a remedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,829
20,314
113
What the NCGOP legislature has done is approve a map close to the elections. It gets tossed for being obscenely partisan...but it's too close to the election for a remedy so says SCOTUS so elections go forward with an illegal map. They keep their majority and lather, rinse, repeat. They have established a mechanism to create a permanent GOP majority in the state legislature AND the US House in a state that elected a Dem governor in both elections where Trump carried the vote.
If you look at your argument, you are actually making a case that people vote outside party lines, and that trying to draw boundaries based solely on party affiliation won't achieve the utopia you are looking for. If that was the case, we wouldn't even need to vote, or have legislative boundaries - we could simply send representatives to Congress based on a proportion of voter registration.

NC's state legislature was Democrat majority from Reconstruction until 2010. I don't recall any issue with how they drew lines until the GOP started doing it. But I guess that's your point, isn't it.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,217
3,345
113
Interesting article.

Yep. Capable of repetition yet evading review problem.

Other problem is gerrymandered state legislature that do not, in fact, reflect the will of the people. Plus those that have moved to restrict state ballot initiatives, again blocking the will of the people.

Roberts Court should have addressed gerrymandering rather than ducking it. It’s a Constitutional violation that requires a remedy.
I don't know that I agree with that - I actually think they got the political gerrymandering cases right. As I've said in the past, politics is not a dirty word when it comes to how a republic is supposed to work, and the absence of any inkling of what a measurable standard is presents its own problems. Indeed, during that argument, they were fairly prescient to note that many state constitutions had been amended to address the issue without federal involvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. Louis Hawk

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,829
20,314
113
Interesting article.

Yep. Capable of repetition yet evading review problem.

Other problem is gerrymandered state legislature that do not, in fact, reflect the will of the people. Plus those that have moved to restrict state ballot initiatives, again blocking the will of the people.

Roberts Court should have addressed gerrymandering rather than ducking it. It’s a Constitutional violation that requires a remedy.
One could make the argument that gerrymandered districts are exactly the will of the people. By that I mean, citizens vote for the legislators who draw the lines (in most states).
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
29,138
55,228
113
One could make the argument that gerrymandered districts are exactly the will of the people. By that I mean, citizens vote for the legislators who draw the lines (in most states).

I’d disagree with that argument. Maybe the will of the minority at best.

In Wisconsin, the vote is about a 50/50 at the state level yet the Legislature is 64 percent R.

The Roberts Court says don’t look to us for help, go to the states.

Yet you can’t go to the states because they are gerrymandered and are restricting the only viable bypasses to state gerrymandering: voter initiatives and state constitutional amendments.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
29,138
55,228
113
I don't know that I agree with that - I actually think they got the political gerrymandering cases right. As I've said in the past, politics is not a dirty word when it comes to how a republic is supposed to work, and the absence of any inkling of what a measurable standard is presents its own problems. Indeed, during that argument, they were fairly prescient to note that many state constitutions had been amended to address the issue without federal involvement.

I’d suggest that just because the issue is difficult isn’t a reason to duck a Constitutional problem.

And several states have moved the opposite direction - locking in gerrymandered minority control by eliminating or curtailing the ability to make state constitutional amendments through voter initiatives.
 

B1GDeal

HR Heisman
Jan 21, 2005
7,595
8,976
113
I’d disagree with that argument. Maybe the will of the minority at best.

In Wisconsin, the vote is about a 50/50 at the state level yet the Legislature is 64 percent R.

The Roberts Court says don’t look to us for help, go to the states.

Yet you can’t go to the states because they are gerrymandered and are restricting the only viable bypasses to state gerrymandering: voter initiatives and state constitutional amendments.
Well, even in states when voters have voted for something that the state legislators don't like they simply don't follow through with things or delay them time and again.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,829
20,314
113
I’d disagree with that argument. Maybe the will of the minority at best.

In Wisconsin, the vote is about a 50/50 at the state level yet the Legislature is 64 percent R.

The Roberts Court says don’t look to us for help, go to the states.

Yet you can’t go to the states because they are gerrymandered and are restricting the only viable bypasses to state gerrymandering: voter initiatives and state constitutional amendments.
OK, just for grins, when we are given examples of people voting across party lines, why is it so critical to try and draw boundaries that specifically represent party affiliation? This would be an even more interesting question in places where there are a lot of 3rd party registrations.

I don't know much about Wisconsin voting, though I'm there quite a bit these days. I do know that in the Panhandle of Florida, excluding Leon County, Republicans make up a huge majority of registrations, but that doesn't always reflect their political leanings. This is due to the nature of partisan primaries, and the effect of that system on local races. When it comes to statewide or national elections, you will find more Democrat votes in the same precincts.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,217
3,345
113
I’d suggest that just because the issue is difficult isn’t a reason to duck a Constitutional problem.

And several states have moved the opposite direction - locking in gerrymandered minority control by eliminating or curtailing the ability to make state constitutional amendments through voter initiatives.
oh, i agree that 'mere' difficulty is no reason to avoid a case. but things like the political question doctrine certainly come into play.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,900
54,053
113
If you look at your argument, you are actually making a case that people vote outside party lines, and that trying to draw boundaries based solely on party affiliation won't achieve the utopia you are looking for. If that was the case, we wouldn't even need to vote, or have legislative boundaries - we could simply send representatives to Congress based on a proportion of voter registration.

NC's state legislature was Democrat majority from Reconstruction until 2010. I don't recall any issue with how they drew lines until the GOP started doing it. But I guess that's your point, isn't it.
LOL...I'm looking at making votes meaningful. If that's "utopia" to you, you have a funny definition of the word. NC is a decidedly purple state. In 2016, Democratic candidates for the House received more votes statewide than GOP candidates did. More votes total. The House delegation that NC sent to Congress was 10 Republicans and three Democrats. A GOP legislator stated publicly they would have drawn it 11-2 if they could have found a way to do it.

Then the NCGOP requested a report on different voting practices broken down by race. They proceeded to pass legislation that curtailed or eliminated EVERY SINGLE PRACTICE favored by voters of color while leaving alone or expanding those favored by white voters. The judge who declared it unconstitutional said it targeted POC "with almost surgical precision". Ironically, they made white-favored absentee ballots easier until POC started using those in higher numbers. NOW the GOP thinks it's rife with fraud. :eek: Yeah, they're not at all racist.

The GOP map was thrown out after the 2016 election due to it's egregious partisan gerrymandering. The court-ordered map changed those House numbers to 8 GOP/5 Dem which is far, far closer to NC as a whole. Votes...mattered. And that is what the state GOP is trying to have overturned. Their definition of "utopia" - yours? - is a guaranteed GOP control no matter what the vote is.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
100,006
132,916
113
I'm not so sure about that, given that the state populations are perfectly free to put in gerrymandering restrictions in their constitutions. Some do, some don't.
Iowa did several years ago and the GOP still attempted to mess with the results this time around. The reason for the recent fights is because of GOP controlled legislatures and governors acting outside of norms. Most efforts at limiting gerrymandering are based on the assumption of good faith. They were not based on the cult that controls one party these days.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,829
20,314
113
LOL...I'm looking at making votes meaningful. If that's "utopia" to you, you have a funny definition of the word. NC is a decidedly purple state. In 2016, Democratic candidates for the House received more votes statewide than GOP candidates did. More votes total. The House delegation that NC sent to Congress was 10 Republicans and three Democrats. A GOP legislator stated publicly they would have drawn it 11-2 if they could have found a way to do it.

Then the NCGOP requested a report on different voting practices broken down by race. They proceeded to pass legislation that curtailed or eliminated EVERY SINGLE PRACTICE favored by voters of color while leaving alone or expanding those favored by white voters. The judge who declared it unconstitutional said it targeted POC "with almost surgical precision". Ironically, they made white-favored absentee ballots easier until POC started using those in higher numbers. NOW the GOP thinks it's rife with fraud. :eek: Yeah, they're not at all racist.

The GOP map was thrown out after the 2016 election due to it's egregious partisan gerrymandering. The court-ordered map changed those House numbers to 8 GOP/5 Dem which is far, far closer to NC as a whole. Votes...mattered. And that is what the state GOP is trying to have overturned. Their definition of "utopia" - yours? - is a guaranteed GOP control no matter what the vote is.
I looked it up. Registrations in NC are as follows:
Democrat - 36%
Republican - 30%
Unaffiliated - 33%

Democrats are concentrated geographically in 3 areas - Research Triangle Park, Charlotte, and Ashville.

There's really no surprise at the state legislature and US House outcomes, or how the districts were drawn. NC changed their voting pattern fairly dramatically in 2010.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,900
54,053
113
I looked it up. Registrations in NC are as follows:
Democrat - 36%
Republican - 30%
Unaffiliated - 33%

Democrats are concentrated geographically in 3 areas - Research Triangle Park, Charlotte, and Ashville.

There's really no surprise at the state legislature and US House outcomes, or how the districts were drawn. NC changed their voting pattern fairly dramatically in 2010.
Strange that the GOP map had it 10-3 while the court map got it 8-5. You think "voting patterns" changed in two years? That GOP map, BTW, split the campus of NC A&T - an HBCU - in half in order to dilute their vote.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,829
20,314
113
Strange that the GOP map had it 10-3 while the court map got it 8-5. You think "voting patterns" changed in two years? That GOP map, BTW, split the campus of NC A&T - an HBCU - in half in order to dilute their vote.
Believe it or not, Independents vote GOP. It's not quite as blatant as you think it is.

Once again, maps aren't there to make everything equal by party affiliation, or race, etc.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,900
54,053
113
Believe it or not, Independents vote GOP. It's not quite as blatant as you think it is.

Once again, maps aren't there to make everything equal by party affiliation, or race, etc.
Uh huh...and in 2016 they split pretty evenly between Dem and Rep and the totals for the state showed Dem candidates getting MORE votes statewide than GOP candidates. And we elected 10 Republicans to the House and 3 Dems. We also have a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Sec. of State, a Democratic AG....they also got more votes statewide than their Republican opponents. So one of these things isn't remotely like the others.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,829
20,314
113
Actually, that's an example of how people don't always just vote by party.

You might be interested in this FACT from the WI website. Wisconsin does not collect information on the gender, race or political party affiliation of registered voters.

https://elections.wi.gov/resources/statistics/november-1-2022-voter-registration-statistics


Chis, it would be better if you didn't get all your information and opinions from Twitter. Doing so makes you as ignorant as the people you follow.
 

Chishawk1425

HR King
Nov 27, 2019
50,252
85,990
113
Actually, that's an example of how people don't always just vote by party.

You might be interested in this FACT from the WI website. Wisconsin does not collect information on the gender, race or political party affiliation of registered voters.

https://elections.wi.gov/resources/statistics/november-1-2022-voter-registration-statistics


Chis, it would be better if you didn't get all your information and opinions from Twitter. Doing so makes you as ignorant as the people you follow.
Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the country. Lol