Supreme Court looks at Redistricting today

[theivoryqueen]

I hope that the supremes are able to locate their consciences.

clip/

Rigging election boundaries: When does it go too far?

The Supreme Court Wednesday takes up a case on political gerrymandering that could affect districts across the US.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – This is what the cutting edge of American democracy has come down to: a "supine seahorse" and an "upside-down Chinese dragon."
They are descriptions of the approximate shape of congressional voting districts drawn in Pennsylvania to maximize the political clout of the Republican Party.

Such attempts by statehouse politicians to rig election boundaries to benefit favored candidates or punish political enemies are nothing new, nor are they activities reserved exclusively for Republicans. But experts say political gerrymandering has never been so prevalent or so effective.

Now, for the first time in 17 years, the US Supreme Court has taken up a case to determine whether at some point political gerrymandering becomes so egregious as to violate safeguards in the Constitution.

clip/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1210/p02s02-usju.html

[mrgorth]

1. This is unbelievably important

redistricting is key to thug plans to take over the country completely. If we lose this there's almost no hope.

[theivoryqueen]

2. I think that is why the supreme court has chosen to hear this case

and I am hoping that their very rational fear of loss of judicial powers in these times of "tort reform" and homeland security issues (Patriot Act) have inspired them to try and stem the tide.....

[pmbryant]

3. Redistricting is a horribly anti-democratic (small 'd') process

As it is currently practiced in the vast majority of states.

The new GOP idea to re-redistrict after every election makes a horrible thing even worse, if that can be imagined.

I am very glad to hear that the Supreme Court is hearing this case (which, to be clear, isn't about the re-redistricting), but I am not optimistic about what their decision will be. I hope I am pleasantly surprise.

--Peter

More good excerpts from that excellent article:

Experts say gerrymandering is having a profound impact on the political process - sharply reducing the number of competitive elections to the House. For example, in 2002, only four challengers were able to defeat incumbent members of Congress, the lowest number in modern American history, according to political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann.

(snip)

"Partisan gerrymandering is more brazen than ever," says Burt Neuborne of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, in a friend-of-the-court brief. "Openly rigging control of legislatures a decade in advance is considered neither unusual nor improper."

The basic allegation in Pennsylvania is that gerrymandering undermines the concept of majority rule: Why should Republicans win 12 of 19 congressional seats, when 48 percent of the state's registered voters are Democrats and 42 percent are registered Republicans?

"It would be quixotic to attempt to bar state legislatures from considering politics as they redraw district lines," says Paul Smith of Washington, D.C., in his brief to the court challenging the Pennsylvania plan. "But when one political party guarantees itself a solid majority of seats, even if it wins only a minority of the votes, the Constitution must provide a remedy."

[theivoryqueen]

4. This sums it up:

"Incumbent legislators quite literally choose the voters before the voters have a chance to choose them."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9564

[Mikhale]

7. Solutions suggested

That Tom Paine link outlines many problems but also suggests some solutions. The problem is redistricting itself (as opposed to re-apportionment). Statewide proportional representation, instant runoff voting and other mechanisms must be employed for fairness and equity (IMO). Don't forget the viable and interesting option of state-by-state PR in existing Congrssional districts for electoral college votes. Wonder why the Republicans don't force that issue....

[pmbryant]

9. electoral college

Using existing Congressional districts for electoral college votes would be a horrible travesty, in my opinion. It would allow the disgraceful process of gerrymandering to affect the Presidential race, in additional to the Congressional ones it already determines.

I have huge problems with the electoral college as it is, but at least it isn't subject to gerrymandering the way it is currently practiced.

--Peter

[theivoryqueen]

12. in a way, it is subject to cause and effect

because the way people are represented - and how districts are divided up to guarantee republican victories - affects how most (48) states award their electoral college votes. If a majority of gerrymandered districts guarantee a majority of voters are voting republican, then 100% of electoral college votes go republican. only two states allow division of electoral votes based on percentage of actual votes cast.

[theivoryqueen]

13. there is one archaic device

by which the states themselves can effect legislation - it was used to repeal prohibition. I will have to dig out the constitution for this, but in essence if a majority (as specified in the US Constitution) of States adopts a law that regulates redistricting, such as a mandatory bi-partisan board-written redistricting (which could also be adopted on a state by state basis) then it would go into effect nationwide, and act to prevent these sorts of power-grabs - basically regulate redistricting.

[theivoryqueen]

6. while it's true, this isn't like Colorado or Texas "re-re's"

it still addresses the basic premise of extreme redistricting in principle: should politicians be able to decide who they serve - via choosing constituents, rather than the other way round? And should they be able to set up "safe" districts - eliminate competition pre-emptively?

[pmbryant]

8. Yes

Sorry about that off-topic sentence, there. ;-)

I think purposefully-drawn "safe" districts should be prohibited. They make a mockery of the voting process, effectively disenfranchising huge chunks of citizens.

But what are the odds the Rehnquist, O'Connor et al feel similarly?

--Peter

[theivoryqueen]

10. O'Connor was quoted in the last redistricting case

as saying that any party leader who doesn't do whatever it takes to secure a statewide majority (during re-districting) should be fired. Or something to that effect. It's in her opinion from that case. But the current circumstances are a bit more extreme, and coupled with the ongoing republican drive to rob powers from the judiciary - having more republican legislators might not (ironically) sit well. I think they understand that these efforts are part of a multi-pronged attack that is designed to coalesce all (or as much as possible) power into one groups control. Which is patently unconstitutional. This is why there was special consideration given the seperation and powers designated for each branch of the federal government.

[pmbryant]

11. That is not an encouraging quote

But that was what, 17 year ago? Let's hope her attitude has changed after being in the judicial branch all that time.

Thanks for the info.

--Peter

[theivoryqueen]

5. The folks at Fairvote.org have given this a lot of thought:

http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/index.html

[SadEagle]

14. Horrible here in NY too.

Here, since we have one chamber of the legislature controlled by the Democrats, and one by the Republicans, when they were redistricting after the 2000 census, where NY lost 2 seats, they were careful to remove 1 Democratic district and 1 Republican district, trying to protect status quo. One of the districts they created here, in the Rochester area, was a synthetic pro-democratic one --- it includes both metro Rochester and Buffalo, connected by a very thin strip of land along the lake Ontario coast. Look at http://latfor.state.ny.us/maps/propcong/fcnys.pdf
district number 28. the weird-shaped thing to the right of the contraption is the city of Rochester.

Oh, and despite living in a Rochester suburb, I am in the 29th district, so I am represented by a republican from the southern tier. That's not neccesserily gerrymandering per se, but I would think a congressman from Rochester would be a better representative?
(Of course, I am biased, since the 28th Rep, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter totally rocks)