Bravo US Supreme Court! A Blow to Gerrymandering

ATeam · Jun 27, 2023

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuffed a legal theory that argued that state legislatures have the authority to set election rules with little oversight from state courts, a major decision that turns away a conservative push to empower state legislatures.

By a 6-3 vote, the court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory in a case about North Carolina’s congressional map. The once-fringe legal theory broadly argued that state courts have little — or no — authority to question state legislatures on election laws for federal contests.

The court’s decision in Moore v. Harper closes the path to what could have been a radical overhaul of America’s election laws. (Source)

Republicans would have a lot less power if not for gerrymandered districts. Now, thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling, gerrymandering can be more effectively challenged and reverse. Gerrymandering is an abhorrent, anti-democracy practice. I'm happy to see it more easily curtailed with this ruling.

LDB · Jun 27, 2023

Anything that helps the 2000 Mules.

coalminer · Jun 27, 2023

Democracy wins for a change.

Turtle · Jun 27, 2023

The authors of the Politico piece clearly live in a murky political bubble. It was hardly a fringe legal theory - it was the prevailing accepted theory for two centuries. It was long regarded as nonjusticiable political question left to the States and Congress to remedy. Democrats were very good at gerrymandering, but Republicans were better, so Democrats went with the activist judge tactic. Democrats are currently cheering the ruling, as they are wilfully ignoring Karma.

Republicans wouldn’t have won the House without gerrymanders in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas. But overall, Democrats fared slightly better than they would have under old maps thanks to their own gerrymanders in Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon and a temporary court-drawn map in North Carolina.

Whereas Republicans focused on locking in as many safe GOP seats as possible (some of which have produced McCarthy detractors), Democrats embarked on a riskier strategy of drawing as many Democratic-leaning seats as possible — and it paid off. Democrats won 24 of the 25 seats they set out to draw for themselves in Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon — including five seats by less than five points. (Source)

ATeam · Jun 27, 2023

Turtle said:
Democrats were very good at gerrymandering, but Republicans were better, ...

It is correct that Republicans were not alone in their gerrymandering activity. With gerrymandering, there is a natural bias for the incumbents to make their own seats safe. To that end, if a party lacks the super-majority power to impose unfair district lines, they are happy to work with each other across party lines to draw district lines that favor the incumbents.

In other cases, where Republicans had strong majorities, they simply imposed their power to draw the district lines in their favor. As Turtle said, Democrats were good at it but Republicans were better.

Either way, with today's ruling, the US Supreme Court found the legal theory to be invalid, and the justices provided a check against future gerrymandering and a way to undo the gerrymandering sins of the past.

ATeam · Jun 27, 2023

Turtle said:
It was hardly a fringe legal theory - it was the prevailing accepted theory for two centuries.

Prevailing where? Just because an idea has been floating around out there for a long time does not make it the law of the land.

To be specific, the legal theory before the court in today's ruling was the independent state legislature theory (IDLT). The Court soundly rejected that theory, providing a major setback for its adherents.

It is worth noting that with it's 6-3 conservative majority, this Court is the most conservative Court we've seen in decades. This conservative court demolished ISLT and published its reasoning for all other courts and history to see.

Turtle · Jun 27, 2023

ATeam said:
Prevailing where?

Almost exclusively in America. The Colonies, new states, and new territories. The theory in question has been the prevailing legal theory since before the Constitution was written. It's been challenged in many courts over the centuries, both state and federal, with the federal courts deferring to the states and Congress to figure it out.

ATeam said:
Just because an idea has been floating around out there for a long time does not make it the law of the land.

No one ever said otherwise. But until it is challenged and adjudicated in court, it nevertheless remains a de facto law of the land.

ATeam said:
To be specific, the legal theory before the court in today's ruling was the independent state legislature theory. The Court soundly rejected that theory, providing a major setback for its adherents.

Well, "soundly" is certainly open to interpretation. 8-1, 7-2, that's soundly. 6-3 is more "soundly" than 5-4, but even here 3 of the majority justices have concerns that this narrow ruling could be expanded. I agree with the majority and Roberts where he wrote the Constitution, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”

I also think it was a good idea for the Chief Justice to include a warning in the form of, “...state courts do not have free rein” and are subject to oversight by federal courts in cases involving federal elections. “We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”

Because, the danger in this ruling is, it could elevate the power of federal courts in the process, allowing them to second-guess rulings of state courts based on state law. We have enough District and Circuit Court shopping going on as it is.

My personal view is, federal voting districts should be redrawn every ten years per the census, with the newly drawn districts being heavily favored towards populations of US citizens rather than all inhabitants. I feel that illegal aliens and even Green Card holders are not entitled to representation in the House of Representatives.

ATeam · Jun 27, 2023

Turtle said:
Almost exclusively in America. The Colonies, new states, and new territories. The theory in question has been the prevailing legal theory since before the Constitution was written. It's been challenged in many courts over the centuries, both state and federal, with the federal courts deferring to the states and Congress to figure it out.

I'm skeptical about that. Sources? Checks and balances is a fundamental American idea that has been in place for centuries. That is a prevailing idea. The independent state legislature theory and ideas akin to it are antithetical. It seems improbable to me that the two ideas would both be prevalent. On what do you base your prevailing idea claim?

Turtle said:
No one ever said otherwise. But until it is challenged and adjudicated in court, it nevertheless remains a de facto law of the land.

True on both counts.

Turtle said:
Because, the danger in this ruling is, it could elevate the power of federal courts in the process, allowing them to second-guess rulings of state courts based on state law. We have enough District and Circuit Court shopping going on as it is.

Yes. This danger exists. But I'm delighted by the ruling because it mitigates the more clear and present danger presented by those who want to undercut checks and balances with ISLT.

Turtle said:
My personal view is, federal voting districts should be redrawn every ten years per the census, with the newly drawn districts being heavily favored towards populations of US citizens rather than all inhabitants. I feel that illegal aliens and even Green Card holders are not entitled to representation in the House of Representatives.

That's a valid point worth considering. With millions of non-citizens now populating the US, and with the census used to establish voting districts, it makes sense to draw the lines with US citizens in mind. Today's technology makes it possible to do so if the political will to do it exists. The census serves a number of purposes. But when it comes to voting, the demographics of non-citizens should be factored out.

LDB · Jun 27, 2023

The left will never let the illegals be left out. That's their reason for existence, to overwhelm the system and then become part of it and guarantee leftist victories forever. Without the need for 2000 Mules. But either illegal method is fine with the left so long as they prevail.

danthewolf00 · Jun 27, 2023

LDB said:
The left will never let the illegals be left out. That's their reason for existence, to overwhelm the system and then become part of it and guarantee leftist victories forever. Without the need for 2000 Mules. But either illegal method is fine with the left so long as they prevail.

I still question why the Democrats don't want forensic audits done on the 2020 election......when before they all questioned the votes.

Turtle · Jun 28, 2023

ATeam said:
On what do you base your prevailing idea claim?

On my own study and knowledge of history. Wikipedia also has plenty of words on the subject.

I've been intrigued by gerrymandering since high school. I've always thought gerrymandering was kind of scummy, but as long as both sides can do it when they're in charge, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, what goes around comes around.

As more of a Constitutionalost, I prefer a literal reading of Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution that says, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

It doesn't say anything about state courts, governors or anyone else having a say in things. The districts cannot be drawn to be illegal, such as to prevent blacks from having a voice in the election, as SCOTUS has already made clear. But gerrymandering for political gain is still OK, scummy as it is, stste court rulings depending. But SCOTUS told me today, "Neener, Neener" so it is what it is.

I'm actually fine with drawing districts by overlaying a blank piece of graph paper on a map and being done with it. Let the chips fall where they may. The only exception would be, again, only citizens should be counted for representation. Trump tried asking that question on the census form, and people lost their minds. Seemed perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

danthewolf00 · Jun 28, 2023

The census population figures are what is used to put seats in the house of representatives. While the Senate will always be 2 seats per state. The population of a state should only be counted with those that are here legally as either born or naturalized citizens.

ATeam · Jun 28, 2023

ATeam said:
That's a valid point worth considering. With millions of non-citizens now populating the US, and with the census used to establish voting districts, it makes sense to draw the lines with US citizens in mind. Today's technology makes it possible to do so if the political will to do it exists. The census serves a number of purposes. But when it comes to voting, the demographics of non-citizens should be factored out.

When I shared this idea with my wife last night, she said it won't work because the US Constitution prescribes another method. ChatGPT put it this way (emphasis mine):

"Excluding non-U.S. citizens for the purpose of drawing district lines is not permissible. The U.S. Constitution requires that congressional districts be based on "equal representation" and the "whole number of persons" residing in each state. The term "persons" refers to all individuals, regardless of citizenship status. This principle is established in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that representation in the House of Representatives must be apportioned among the states based on their respective populations.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that districts must be drawn based on total population, rather than eligible voters or citizens. In the case of Evenwel v. Abbott in 2016, the Supreme Court held that states have the authority to use total population when drawing districts, and they are not required to use the voting population or eligible voters as the basis for apportionment.

"Therefore, the exclusion of non-U.S. citizens would be inconsistent with constitutional principles and legal precedents governing redistricting in the United States."

ATeam · Jun 28, 2023

LDB said:
The left will never let the illegals be left out. That's their reason for existence, to overwhelm the system and then become part of it and guarantee leftist victories forever. Without the need for 2000 Mules. But either illegal method is fine with the left so long as they prevail.

See my post above. It seems the US Constitution requires that district lines be drawn on population and not on eligible voters. That does not mean that illegal immigrants have the right to vote. They do not. But their numbers must be included as a factor when district lines are drawn.

LDB · Jun 28, 2023

ATeam said:
See my post above. It seems the US Constitution requires that district lines be drawn on population and not on eligible voters. That does not mean that illegal immigrants have the right to vote. They do not. But their numbers must be included as a factor when district lines are drawn.

That is one of the flaws of the FF and the Constitution. They failed to anticipate literally millions of illegals who should not be counted and should not have any rights or privileges. Where the FF used "people" they should have used "citizens". Illegals should never be counted as part of the census. They are, but it is wrong. Period.

coalminer · Jun 28, 2023

Dont forget that when the Constitution was written, we did have open borders, everyone was welcome to come here.

muttly · Jun 28, 2023

danthewolf00 said:
The census population figures are what is used to put seats in the house of representatives. While the Senate will always be 2 seats per state. The population of a state should only be counted with those that are here legally as either born or naturalized citizens.

That would be the common sense approach, but Leftists are filling courts with more activists and are threatening or harassing “conservative” judges to vote their way.

LDB · Jun 28, 2023

coalminer said:
Dont forget that when the Constitution was written, we did have open borders, everyone was welcome to come here.

I don't think everyone was welcome. Those who were prepared to leave where they came from and be Americans were welcome, as they should be. Those who want to convert here to "there" should not.