In 5-4 decision, SCOTUS says extreme partisan gerrymandering is beyond reach of federal courts.

[Jason]

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html

[SaysWho?]

Welp, that sucks.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

This should hardly come as a surprise and presents evidence that the United States of America is irrevocably broken.

[SaysWho?]

So how does this affect the Supreme Court case in Virginia? They just issued a ruling that would change the map there, and that came from SCOTUS, albeit limited to Virginia only.

[osxmatt]

A tragedy for our democracy.

[Firewithin]

[mclumber1]

The best thing we can do to limit the effects of gerrymandering is to create more, smaller districts.  One rep for every 200,000 citizens (instead of the current ~700,000) would result in more compact districts that better represent the constituents in an area.  Plus it would end up making the electoral college more fair, as it would dilute the power of less populated states.  This can be done without a constitutional amendment - all it would take is an act by Congress to expand the House. 

[Jason]

So apparently this is a forever decision, since by ruling it's not a federal issue, now nobody can ever get another case into the federal court systems? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

So apparently this is a forever decision, since by ruling it's not a federal issue, now nobody can ever get another case into the federal court systems? 

You got it, chief!

[SaysWho?]

If I'm reading right, state courts can still overturn maps. I guess there's that, but this is quite the political move by the Supreme Court.

 

"We're in charge. Now we're rigging the system."

That's not right.

"Hey, if you don't like it, you can vote and change it during the next election."

But we need legislatures to pass better maps since they're in charge, and you already rigged the map in your favor to keep yourself in charge.

"Sucka."

 

The one upside: the governor's mansion isn't gerrymandered and they can veto bad maps, which is good for Wisconsin/Michigan and North Carolina if the Democrat keeps his seat in 2020 (he won in 2016 in a good year for Republicans).

[osxmatt]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

If I'm reading right, state courts can still overturn maps. I guess there's that, but this is quite the political move by the Supreme Court.

 

"We're in charge. Now we're rigging the system."

That's not right.

"Hey, if you don't like it, you can vote and change it during the next election."

But we need legislatures to pass better maps, and you already rigged the map in your favor.

"Sucka."

 

The one upside: the governor's mansion isn't gerrymandered and they can veto bad maps, which is good for Wisconsin/Michigan and North Carolina if the Democrat keeps his seat in 2020 (he won in 2016 in a good year for Republicans).

Hopefully I live in a state that decides to protect my voting rights!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

If I'm reading right, state courts can still overturn maps. I guess there's that, but this is quite the political move by the Supreme Court.

 

"We're in charge. Now we're rigging the system."

That's not right.

"Hey, if you don't like it, you can vote and change it during the next election."

But we need legislatures to pass better maps since they're in charge, and you already rigged the map in your favor to keep yourself in charge.

"Sucka."

 

The one upside: the governor's mansion isn't gerrymandered and they can veto bad maps, which is good for Wisconsin/Michigan and North Carolina if the Democrat keeps his seat in 2020 (he won in 2016 in a good year for Republicans).

Ahem

 

[Guest]

Reading through it now and I think the majority is “correct”, which points out the absolute absurdity of our system. There is no clear constitutional basis for the federal courts to intervene with regards to political party based gerrymandering. They could have said, and would be correct as well, that many aspects of political gerrymandering have been cover for racially biased maps. But score one for the GOP, they have ensured relevance for many decades to come  

[Jason]

A year ago today:

 

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

So how does this affect the Supreme Court case in Virginia? They just issued a ruling that would change the map there, and that came from SCOTUS, albeit limited to Virginia only.

I think it says it’s not an issue for federal court, leaving it in the hands of the state?

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

The best thing we can do to limit the effects of gerrymandering is to create more, smaller districts.  One rep for every 200,000 citizens (instead of the current ~700,000) would result in more compact districts that better represent the constituents in an area.  Plus it would end up making the electoral college more fair, as it would dilute the power of less populated states.  This can be done without a constitutional amendment - all it would take is an act by Congress to expand the House. 

 

Does it require a 2/3 majority in the Senate or something?

[Jason]

 

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Does it require a 2/3 majority in the Senate or something?

 

No.  It would be like any other bill, requiring a simple majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate - assuming the filibuster is still around by the time my proposal is voted on!

[SaysWho?]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

More for Kagan than Katyal's, er, "impressive" judgment.

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No.  It would be like any other bill, requiring a simple majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate - assuming the filibuster is still around by the time my proposal is voted on!

 

So if the Democrats actually wanted to, and had a simply majority in the House and Senate (plus Presidency), they could potentially:

• Eliminate the leglislative filibuster
• Add statehood to Puerto Rico
• Increase House to 1,000+ seats

Is that correct? You know, if they actually wanted to save American democracy (or at least slow it's decline)?

[mclumber1]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

You know, if they actually wanted to save American democracy

 

Narrator:  They didn't.  

 

The problem with my proposal is that it severely dilutes the power of any individual Representative, so no Rep would want to enact such a change. 

[TwinIon]

Warren's voting plan includes:

-Mandated automatic and same day voter registration

-Standardized federal ballots and voting machines

-Eliminates voter purges

-Makes election day a national holiday

-Voting by mail

-Required use of independent redistricting commissions

 

It sounds like some of those things (purges, registration) would directly affect state elections, but some wouldn't. So she wants to incentivize states to follow the same rules by paying for their elections if they do. Seems like an interesting idea, but it wouldn't solve the problem for some of the more stubborn states.

[Joe]

36 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

More for Kagan than Katyal's, er, "impressive" judgment.

 

I mean this is what the legal community does. You guys expected Katyal to be like "oh man, Gorsuch sucks guys." Gorsuch was and is extremely qualified to be a SCOTUS judge.

 

[Dodger]

35 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So if the Democrats actually wanted to, and had a simply majority in the House and Senate (plus Presidency), they could potentially:

• Eliminate the leglislative filibuster
• Add statehood to Puerto Rico
• Increase House to 1,000+ seats

Is that correct? You know, if they actually wanted to save American democracy (or at least slow it's decline)?

 

So "saving American democracy" for you is instead of stacking elections in favor of Republicans to stack it in favor of Democrats?

[Joe]

1 minute ago, Dodger said:

 

So "saving American democracy" for you is instead of stacking elections in favor of Republicans to stack it in favor of Democrats?

 

You oppose statehood for Puerto Rico?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

So "saving American democracy" for you is instead of stacking elections in favor of Republicans to stack it in favor of Democrats?

If making things more democratic makes things more Democratic, that isn’t stacking anything. It is simply what the majority wants.

[marioandsonic]

So...how fucked are we?

[Firewithin]

22 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

So...how fucked are we?

SUPER

[Ghost_MH]

22 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

So "saving American democracy" for you is instead of stacking elections in favor of Republicans to stack it in favor of Democrats?

 

Please explain how giving American citizens representation in their own government while living on American land is a power grab. Also, I'd love to know how making government more representative of the actual voting people is also a power grab.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

So...how fucked are we?

It’s more of the same, but with the possibility of slightly emboldening the political parties that currently hold power in each state house to double down on their shenanigans. But they were already doing all sorts off awful things already which we naively hoped could be corrected by the federal courts 

[CitizenVectron]

48 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

So "saving American democracy" for you is instead of stacking elections in favor of Republicans to stack it in favor of Democrats?

 

Of the three things I mentioned, only one could be construed as trying to stack in favour of Democrats (PR statehood). The others simply increase the accuracy of representation and the efficiency of government. And PR statehood is only partisan if you believe that Puerto Ricans do not deserve representation.

[Greatoneshere]

47 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

So...how fucked are we?

 

FUCKED. And you go first. Welcome to 'Murica!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

FUCKED. And you go first. Welcome to 'Murica!

Nah, he is a white male AFAIK. He gets it last, if ever, my man! ‘Murica indeed!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

52 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

So "saving American democracy" for you is instead of stacking elections in favor of Republicans to stack it in favor of Democrats?

You're honestly a bigger hack than DVD for this contrived bullshit

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Nah, he is a white male AFAIK. He gets it last, if ever, my man! ‘Murica indeed!

 

It may very well be time for me to move to a different country, at this rate.