Federal Court Strikes Down "Unconstitutional" Gerrymandering in North Carolina

[Bob Schroeck]

Article here.  And hopefully it's just the first of many such rulings.

[Bob Schroeck]

And now Pennsylvania.

[hazard]

It's telling that both North Carolina and Pennsylvanian cases were argued before majority Democrats courts. The North Carolina case saw the sole Republican (of a panel of three judges) decide in agreement and AFAICT did not dissent in a later opinion, so that's encouraging as a ruling not politically motivated. The result of the Pennsylvanian case and if the Republicans on the Supreme Court dissent will be important for how legitimate the result will be perceived to be.

Although losing both cases when the redistricting was done by the Republican party and to their benefit will be quite painful and will likely see the Republican stranglehold on national politics severely weakened, if not shattered. IIRC the Republican Party has been consistently under performing in the popular vote but winning in otherwise contested districts through, well, gerrymandering.

[robkelk]

I understand that there's an independent commission that draws the electoral district boundaries in Arizona and a few other states. What's stopping the bureaucrats in other states from following suit?

[LynnInDenver]

I understand that there's an independent commission that draws the electoral district boundaries in Arizona and a few other states. What's stopping the bureaucrats in other states from following suit?

Because they're trying hard to retain the ability to gerrymander. It's probably going to take a court order of, "you guys can't draw up your own districts because you're not doing it fairly. Either you bring in an independent committee, let the Democrats do it for you, or we'll do it."

[hazard]

I understand that there's an independent commission that draws the electoral district boundaries in Arizona and a few other states. What's stopping the bureaucrats in other states from following suit?

The legislature.

The authority to draw the electoral district boundaries lies, by law, with the elected state legislature. Which has an incentive in drawing districts that keep them in power by direct election.

To be honest, if the Democrats were better at it we'd be complaining about them, they've done it themselves as well.

[robkelk]

Which is why it should be taken out of the politicians' hands and given to an independent group to do.

(I see California also has an independent body to draw its district boundaries. I know Canada does, as well.)

[hazard]

Because they're trying hard to retain the ability to gerrymander. It's probably going to take a court order of, "you guys can't draw up your own districts because you're not doing it fairly. Either you bring in an independent committee, let the Democrats do it for you, or we'll do it."

Regarding the bolded; actually that's a bad idea. Most judges in the US are elected directly by the people.

[robkelk]

CNN: Here are the most obscenely gerrymandered congressional districts in America

They only list three districts... but they include maps.

[hazard]

I may make a rather unpopular statement now, but I will be making it;

Due to how the US voting districts are supposed to provide voters with representatives that can adequately present their issues to the US Congress, some degree of gerrymandering is a good thing, especially on racial and/or class grounds. It's important however to keep in mind that votes should not be distributed across the districts in such a way that it doesn't matter how you vote; swing and unpredictability in a voting district are a good thing, they force politicians to pay attention to their constituents' opinions.

[Labster]

Most obscenely? Well, look at those curves!

California's Redistricting Commission was put in place in a referendum backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, because he thought the lines were too biased against Republicans. It turns out it really didn't work out that way at all here, though we did get many more competitive districts. Although some formerly competitive re-districts, like mine, are now solidly Democrat. California Republicans are hurt so much by their national brand that it's getting harder for them to compete.

To be honest, if the Democrats were better at it we'd be complaining about them, they've done it themselves as well.

The party has, as a whole, grown a profound distaste for gerrymandering. No one wants this to happen again. It's why rules like the Senate filibuster survive -- it sucks being in the minority, and you know you're going to end up there again one day. Democracy only works with cooperation, and after 2010 Republicans chose the defect strategy as often as they could. And so, most everyone's on board with reducing our power if we keep anyone from every going nuts like they did this time.

[hazard]

The [i]entire[i] Republican Party is hurting as a result of the shenanigans since Obama took office. Trump is just the worst offender and such an easy target for all the hate.

I mean, I'm not the greatest fan of Bush Jr, but AFAICT from across the pond he was an actually decent president who just massively fucked up with Iraq. I like Obama better, but if you look at some of his policies which were not or not extensively reported in the news he was, well, a good president for the US with some questionable decisions.

[robkelk]

I may make a rather unpopular statement now, but I will be making it;

Due to how the US voting districts are supposed to provide voters with representatives that can adequately present their issues to the US Congress, some degree of gerrymandering is a good thing, especially on racial and/or class grounds. It's important however to keep in mind that votes should not be distributed across the districts in such a way that it doesn't matter how you vote; swing and unpredictability in a voting district are a good thing, they force politicians to pay attention to their constituents' opinions.

In that case, why not go whole-hog? Make every Congresscritter a Member-At-Large, sent to Congress by a petition signed by 300,000 electors (or whatever number is appropriate for one's state) who have signed only one petition each election cycle. That way, all of the representatives have the support of every elector, no votes are "wasted", and political parties can still ask their members to send particular candidates to DC. The downside - and I think it isn't a downside at all, but some people do - is that one can't vote against somebody under this system, only for somebody.

[LynnInDenver]

Most obscenely?  Well, look at those curves!

California's Redistricting Commission was put in place in a referendum backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, because he thought the lines were too biased against Republicans.  It turns out it really didn't work out that way at all here, though we did get many more competitive districts.  Although some formerly competitive re-districts, like mine, are now solidly Democrat.  California Republicans are hurt so much by their national brand that it's getting harder for them to compete.

I was wondering today if that was part of why there's been efforts in recent years to split California into two states, one mostly urban, one mostly rural. Pick up a guaranteed Republican seat or three, so they could adjust the balance of power in that way. There was a similar effort a few years back here in Colorado, with rational of, "rural areas need their voices to be heard, they have different needs compared to the in-power metropolitan areas".

Regarding the bolded; actually that's a bad idea. Most judges in the US are elected directly by the people.

That's why I put it at the END of the list. I recognize that the courts do NOT want to get into that political can of worms if they can help it. Better to try to get them to do a bipartisan committee to redraw the lines first, before smacking them with the "nuke it from orbit" option.

[hazard]

In that case, why not go whole-hog? Make every Congresscritter a Member-At-Large, sent to Congress by a petition signed by 300,000 electors (or whatever number is appropriate for one's state) who have signed only one petition each election cycle. That way, all of the representatives have the support of every elector, no votes are "wasted", and political parties can still ask their members to send particular candidates to DC. The downside - and I think it isn't a downside at all, but some people do - is that one can't vote against somebody under this system, only for somebody.

This is basically the 'list transferable vote' option in use by most democracies, where you vote for a candidate and his party. If the party achieves more than 100/(number of seats) percent of the votes the party gets a seat, usually assigned to the highest ranked on the list. If a candidate gets more than that many votes he gets assigned that seat personally.

This system slightly advantages more popular parties.

That's why I put it at the END of the list. I recognize that the courts do NOT want to get into that political can of worms if they can help it. Better to try to get them to do a bipartisan committee to redraw the lines first, before smacking them with the "nuke it from orbit" option.

That's not what I meant.

Granting the power to redistrict to judges lets judges choose who elects them. Admittedly this is somewhat better than letting the guys writing the laws decide who elects them, but the judges get to decide what laws are legal.

[LynnInDenver]

That's why I put it at the END of the list. I recognize that the courts do NOT want to get into that political can of worms if they can help it. Better to try to get them to do a bipartisan committee to redraw the lines first, before smacking them with the "nuke it from orbit" option.

That's not what I meant.

Granting the power to redistrict to judges lets judges choose who elects them. Admittedly this is somewhat better than letting the guys writing the laws decide who elects them, but the judges get to decide what laws are legal.

I figured it was what you were arguing. Again, it's the nuclear option that they'd prefer not to use for that reason. But I'm also sure we can't trust Republicans to just do what's right in terms of voluntarily doing a bipartisan redrawing or bringing in an actual independent committee.

[hazard]

I figured it was what you were arguing. Again, it's the nuclear option that they'd prefer not to use for that reason. But I'm also sure we can't trust Republicans to just do what's right in terms of voluntarily doing a bipartisan redrawing or bringing in an actual independent committee.

Can't trust the Democrats to do that either.

[Bob Schroeck]

You have to admit that on the average, the Republican Party over the last decade or two has -- whether they wanted to or not -- given the broad impression that they're willing to do or say anything to stay in power in the face of changing demographics that threaten to deprive them of it. If you want to look like you're not underhanded, you don't do things like, say, pass laws to disenfranchise large swathes of the population known to vote for your opposition and then report gloatingly about your success at doing so (North Carolina, 2016). The current Republican penchant for seizing on any half-baked conspiracy theory handy to smear a government agency which isn't turning out results to match the party line is another good example. Simple rule, people. If you don't want to look like villains, don't do and say things that make you look like villains. There are moments when I swear that the modern Republican Party has a copy of the Evil Overlord List and is using it as a guideline for day-to-day operations.

[hazard]

You have to admit that on the average, the Republican Party over the last decade or two has -- whether they wanted to or not -- given the broad impression that they're willing to do or say anything to stay in power in the face of changing demographics that threaten to deprive them of it.  If you want to look like you're not underhanded, you don't do things like, say, pass laws to disenfranchise large swathes of the population known to vote for your opposition and then report gloatingly about your success at doing so (North Carolina, 2016).  The current Republican penchant for seizing on any half-baked conspiracy theory handy to smear a government agency which isn't turning out results to match the party line is another good example.  Simple rule, people.  If you don't want to look like villains, don't do and say things that make you look like villains.  There are moments when I swear that the modern Republican Party has a copy of the Evil Overlord List and is using it as a guideline for day-to-day operations.

Hey, they've been doing that since the 80's at minimum.

I mean the passing laws thing. The gloating I'm not so sure about.


And no, the Republican Party is not using a copy of the EOL as a guideline for day to day operations. I mean, the EOL generally advises not doing this sort of thing.

And yeah, at minimum since late Bush Jr/early Obama administration the Republican Party has been getting... odd.

[LynnInDenver]

I figured it was what you were arguing. Again, it's the nuclear option that they'd prefer not to use for that reason. But I'm also sure we can't trust Republicans to just do what's right in terms of voluntarily doing a bipartisan redrawing or bringing in an actual independent committee.

Can't trust the Democrats to do that either.

Which leaves us at "court orders them to bring in a properly bipartisan committee or an independent committee," and it may require said court to APPOINT that committee to make sure it gets done. I'm not sure they have anything better than that to force the Republicans to do this correctly without tripping your filter (read: without ensuring that Republicans have to be voted out at an 80%+ margin), and I can see that some will still scream bloody murder that the judges are interfering with the process.

Although regarding your distrust of Democrats gerrymandering, as noted, at the very least under the circumstances, the Democrats in many areas are, at least, finding the public reaction to gerrymandering enough that they'll avoid it for a while, even if they don't find it's use against them leaving a bad enough taste for them to avoid it on principle.

[robkelk]

...
Which leaves us at "court orders them to bring in a properly bipartisan committee or an independent committee," and it may require said court to APPOINT that committee to make sure it gets done. ...

You don't need a committee. Just give the job to whoever it is who's responsible for overseeing elections and making sure no election fraud takes place.

Because one can make a case for gerrymandering being a form of election fraud.