The Supreme Court case that could transform politics

[TalkRadio]

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court hears arguments in Benisek v. Lamone, a case about whether Maryland violated the First Amendment rights of Republican voters by redrawing the state’s congressional districts with the goal of making it unwinnable for an incumbent Republican member of Congress. The case may answer not only that question but also a broader one about the courts’ proper role in the political process: Will the late Antonin Scalia’s view that courts should mostly refuse to police incumbency protection and political self-interest prevail?

The Benisek ruling revolves around whether the court is willing to let incumbents set the rules for their own elections to office. In many states, legislators have the power to approve the lines used to create districts in which they will run for reelection—and it is no surprise that these districts are often drawn to the majority party’s advantage, a process known as gerrymandering.

Such was the case in Maryland, where the Democratic-controlled state government redrew congressional boundaries ahead of the 2012 elections in such a way so as to deprive Republican voters of a majority in one of the state’s two remaining GOP-majority congressional districts. There’s no real disagreement over whether this was the Democrats’ motivation—then-Governor Martin O’Malley testified in a 2017 deposition that it was his “hope” and “intent” that redistricting would oust incumbent GOP Congressman Roscoe Bartlett from office, which it did.

If Scalia’s views ultimately prevail, the kind of brazen redistricting we’ve seen in states like Maryland, Wisconsin and North Carolina will become the new norm. So victory may come in for gerrymandering challengers in these cases in the short term, but in the long term, Scalia’s views may live on. On this question and many others, Scalia may be more influential in death than in life.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/26/supreme-court-gerrymandering-217710

 

[HisArpy]

It's an interesting dilemma. One that is also occurring in Pa right now. And Ca too, as the Districting here is so gerrymandered that a Republican can't even get on the ballot in most Districts.

The question is whether States have the right to draw their Districts without interference by the courts or the federal government. I side with the States on this even when it disenfranchises my vote. The power belongs to the States, not the courts.

 

[Hypoxia]

It's an interesting dilemma. One that is also occurring in Pa right now. And Ca too, as the Districting here is so gerrymandered that a Republican can't even get on the ballot in most Districts.

Not "can't get on the ballot" but "don't bother to try". Gups know it's a wasted effort in places -- same as Dums in my locale.

Besides redistricting, which is quite nonpartisan now, California's "top two" primary rule means the primary vote-leaders will face each other in November whatever their parties. In my rural Central California district, I'll probably get to choose between two Gups again for House, State Senate, and Legislature, same as last time. Only Gups make the cut here.

Do I whine that I and other independents been gerrymandered? Nope. These are contiguous, compact districts with more Gups than Dums. That's the reality here. Live in a truly Gup district, get Gup representation.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

That's as it should be. I've oscillated between Conservative Democrat and Conservative Republican since voting age. Mostly centered and slightly to the right as Conservative nonetheless.

I'm an Independent. People just don't get that and Independents are forced to take sides.


Also, I believe Trump to be an Independent at heart. His actions throughout his life tend to dictate it. Actions; not words.

 

[jaF0]

No party should have anything to say about districts .. AT ALL. Not a word.

Districts should be set up by primarily geographical and governmental boundaries. In lesser populated areas, that may mean entire counties or multiple counties. In higher populated areas, they would follow municipal boundaries, rivers/streams or major roadways.

NO REGARD whatsoever should be given to anything other than numbers of people. NOTHING about income or beliefs or past voting.

 

[Hypoxia]

No party should have anything to say about districts .. AT ALL. Not a word.

Districts should be set up by primarily geographical and governmental boundaries. In lesser populated areas, that may mean entire counties or multiple counties. In higher populated areas, they would follow municipal boundaries, rivers/streams or major roadways.

NO REGARD whatsoever should be given to anything other than numbers of people. NOTHING about income or beliefs or past voting.

Drawing and labeling maps is always about power, which abhors a vacuum. Can an impersonal AI fairly draw district maps? Only if it isn't hacked. Otherwise try nonpartisan commissions with judicial oversight. It ain't easy.

 

[HisArpy]

No party should have anything to say about districts .. AT ALL. Not a word.

Districts should be set up by primarily geographical and governmental boundaries. In lesser populated areas, that may mean entire counties or multiple counties. In higher populated areas, they would follow municipal boundaries, rivers/streams or major roadways.

NO REGARD whatsoever should be given to anything other than numbers of people. NOTHING about income or beliefs or past voting.

SCOTUS deemed the boundary method to be unconstitutional because the Constitution requires districts to be based upon number of persons to determine the district borders.

I thought about the problem once and came up with what I call the "ring method" to draw districts. It's fair, impartial, and is based on the Constitutional requirements. Take larger population centers as the centers and draw rings around them Each concentric ring has to have the same number of people. Where 2 rings touch, ALL the ring boundaries should be re-adjusted to ensure that all rings have the same population density throughout the State.

This means that geographic features of the land are ignored. As are man-made features such as streets and zip codes and the like. It also means that one house in the middle of the block could be in 1 district and the neighboring house in another. It is also possible that a house or property could straddle the line, in which case the inner ring district controls. Districts would be adjusted every 10 years based on the census as it is now. Software can be written to do this, just feed in the numbers and let the program run.

Could work. Might have a few teething problems, but I believe those could be worked out.

 

[jaF0]

SCOTUS deemed the boundary method to be unconstitutional because the Constitution requires districts to be based upon number of persons to determine the district borders.

But it would be. I left that out so as not to go too deep into it. Much like your rings, the border method would be based on population. If you need 50,000 people for a district and it takes the populations of 5 counties, so be it. In larger counties, it may take 3 or 4 municipalities to make that 50,000. Big cities may need to be cut up a few times for each district to equal 50,000 and those cuts would be along major roads, railroads, creeks/streams, etc.


The main point is the population and ONLY population be the major factor. Demographics of the population would be excluded.

 

[HisArpy]

But it would be. I left that out so as not to go too deep into it. Much like your rings, the border method would be based on population. If you need 50,000 people for a district and it takes the populations of 5 counties, so be it. In larger counties, it may take 3 or 4 municipalities to make that 50,000. Big cities may need to be cut up a few times for each district to equal 50,000 and those cuts would be along major roads, railroads, creeks/streams, etc.


The main point is the population and ONLY population be the major factor. Demographics of the population would be excluded.

The issue with your proposal is that some future legislature can "redraw" the map boundaries based on different geo-features. Instead of following this creek, we want that creek over there because that neighborhood votes predominantly... Thus skewing the demographics of the district in favor of 1 part over the other(s).

With the ring method, you can't do that because the boundaries ignore voting patterns and other man-made things. It's based solely on the number of bodies. When the numbers change, the boundaries also change accordingly by either expanding and eliminating a district or condensing and creating a new district of equal population density as all of the others (through adjusting all ring borders).

I'm not a political strategist or programmer so I can't see all of the bugs, but the concept is viable and sounds as if it would work better/fairer than the system everyone currently uses. Which means it has no chance of ever being implemented anywhere.

 

[coachdb18]

It's fair, impartial, and is based on the Constitutional requirements. Take larger population centers as the centers and draw rings around them Each concentric ring has to have the same number of people. Where 2 rings touch, ALL the ring boundaries should be re-adjusted to ensure that all rings have the same population density throughout the State.

Basing rings around population centers automatically biases that these districts would be largely Democrat-centric. Democrats have for many years been in charge of big cities and makor population centers

 

[HisArpy]

Basing rings around population centers automatically biases that these districts would be largely Democrat-centric. Democrats have for many years been in charge of big cities and major population centers

This is true, but the collary is that suburban and rural areas tend to be largely Republican and there would be an equal number of each type thus setting up the legislature to be equally represented by the ideologies of the entire people of the State rather than having only 1 dominant ideology.


It's only an idea. It may have a few implementation issues but at some point it should work and be fair. To me it'd be interesting to model it based upon known past demographic changes and see what the effects would be. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to do that.