And now...the census question gets punted down to a lower court? So...citizenship question is blocked...for now.
The Constitution specifies that districts have to be the same size?It's based on the constitution, not a federal law. In order to add qualifiers we would need to amend the constitution. The only qualifiers the federal government has ever successfully added that I'm aware of were based on race and that's because of the 14th amendment. Any attempt to add qualifiers federally here would be struck down by SCOTUS I'm almost certain.
I think so because federal election law and funding is at stake. It's hard to say the feds don't have any say in voting when they are funding it.Already cited one; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 15th amendment and other constitutional authorities already provide the power to address this, refer to "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." I suppose you could argue that Congress couldn't take the ultimate power to perform redistricting from the states, but they can and have put limits on how it can be done.
Already cited one; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 15th amendment and other constitutional authorities already provide the power to address this, refer to "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." I suppose you could argue that Congress couldn't take the ultimate power to perform redistricting from the states, but they can and have put limits on how it can be done.
Already cited one; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 15th amendment and other constitutional authorities already provide the power to address this, refer to "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." I suppose you could argue that Congress couldn't take the ultimate power to perform redistricting from the states, but they can and have put limits on how it can be done.
The Constitution specifies that districts have to be the same size?
It's based on the constitution, not a federal law. In order to add qualifiers we would need to amend the constitution. The only qualifiers the federal government has ever successfully added that I'm aware of were based on race and that's because of the 14th amendment. Any attempt to add qualifiers federally here would be struck down by SCOTUS I'm almost certain.
Yes, SCOTUS has interpreted it to say as much. It's not due to federal law, and if Congress passed a federal law saying districts didn't have to have equal populations it would be struck down.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
My understanding is the Apportionment clause phrase "according to their respective numbers" is generally accepted to mean that districts need to be equal in size with some allowances made for the technical constraints of accuracy. It doesn't qualify whom those "equal numbers" should comprise of for simple purposes of fairness and gerrrymandering doesn't on its face violate the "equal numbers" rule.
Right, it doesn't violate the equal numbers rule but it violates the 'one man one vote' principle that SCOTUS has always embraced. It is irrelevant if each person can cast a vote if the government has rigged the elections so that vote effectively no longer matters as to who controls the government.
Which again is why I said it should be fixed via new federal law. I know it's frustrating when SCOTUS seems like they're dodging the question when the Constitution or federal law doesn't speak to a subject, but the alternative is worse. For example, the constitution doesn't really give guidance for what the 5th amendment phrase "public use" means in the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Instead of punting on the issue (properly) so that federal law could be enhanced to define it, instead the SCOTUS decided for all of us to become super-legislators and write the law themselves for what "public use" meant with their atrocious Kelo v. City of New London decision. We're all worse off because of it since the ruling essentially forecloses the possibility of fixing it with federal law. If the case of gerrymandering, they could have likewise decided to become wanna-be legislators and decided for us all what the law should be - I'm guessing you would have been a lot more unhappy if the "law" they created from whole cloth contained a lot of provisions you dislike.
Right, and what I’m saying is that SCOTUS would rule any federal attempt to stop partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional.
They decided that one person one vote no longer matters and the federal government has no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymanders if one person one vote doesn’t matter.
I disagree that "one person, one vote" requires the voter to be placed into a specific district. That completely distorts the meaning of the phrase into something which makes it non-sensical. You're conflating fairness of the process (which is a goal we should aim for, and why I support new federal laws to stomp out gerrymandering) with lack of access to voting.
I’m not, I’m saying the principle of one person one vote is violated when it is rendered effectively impossible for that vote to achieve its desired outcome.
Which again is why I said it should be fixed via new federal law. I know it's frustrating when SCOTUS seems like they're dodging the question when the Constitution or federal law doesn't speak to a subject, but the alternative is worse. For example, the constitution doesn't really give guidance for what the 5th amendment phrase "public use" means in the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Instead of punting on the issue (properly) so that federal law could be enhanced to define it, instead the SCOTUS decided for all of us to become super-legislators and write the law themselves for what "public use" meant with their atrocious Kelo v. City of New London decision. We're all worse off because of it since the ruling essentially forecloses the possibility of fixing it with federal law. If the case of gerrymandering, they could have likewise decided to become wanna-be legislators and decided for us all what the law should be - I'm guessing you would have been a lot more unhappy if the "law" they created from whole cloth contained a lot of provisions you dislike.
The ruling on gerrymandering essentially forecloses the possibility of fixing it with federal law as well. They green lighted gerrymandering.
The ruling on gerrymandering essentially forecloses the possibility of fixing it with federal law as well. They green lighted gerrymandering.
Systemic issues aren't usually solved within the system, at least without an external stress to it. The people of those states aren't putting any external stresses on their political systems that I am aware of.The ruling on gerrymandering essentially forecloses the possibility of fixing it with federal law as well. They green lighted gerrymandering.
And Wisconsin, North Carolina.........I think the only fixes is by states themselves and it will not be easy. Just look at PA.
And Wisconsin, North Carolina.........
I expect the GOP to approach this rationally, the way they approach every other policy decision these days.At the federal level I doubt there's much of a perceived net gain in allowing unlimited gerrymandering from both sides, so I do think a bipartisan consensus could be formed to prohibit some of the more egregious practices. If the positive advantage gained by GOP in NC is offset by advantages gained by Dems in WI then it's a zero sum game with both sides losing public confidence that elections are fair and honest. I'm guessing some of the more widely accepted "best practices" like compactness, continguity, etc. could be agreed to by both sides since neither inherently helps either side.
I expect the GOP to approach this rationally, the way they approach every other policy decision these days.
The only way to achieve that outcome would be voting at large for every legislative post and implementing proportional representation, effectively abolishing districts.I’m not, I’m saying the principle of one person one vote is violated when it is rendered effectively impossible for that vote to achieve its desired outcome.