Slashdot Mirror
North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina's congressional map on Tuesday, condemning it as unconstitutional because Republicans had drawn the map seeking a political advantage (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). The ruling was the first time that a federal court had blocked a congressional map because of a partisan gerrymander, and it instantly endangered Republican seats in the coming elections. Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a biting 191-page opinion, said that Republicans in North Carolina's Legislature had been "motivated by invidious partisan intent" as they carried out their obligation in 2016 to divide the state into 13 congressional districts, 10 of which are held by Republicans. The result, Judge Wynn wrote, violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The ruling and its chief demand -- that the Republican-dominated Legislature create a new landscape of congressional districts by Jan. 24 -- infused new turmoil into the political chaos that has in recent years enveloped North Carolina. President Trump carried North Carolina in 2016, but the state elected a Democrat as its governor on the same day and in 2008 supported President Barack Obama.
It's difficult to do. The gerrymandered districts will have a similar number of people in them, but that's not the problem. Imagine you have 10,000 people voting for teams A and B, with a 50:50 split. It's possible to arrange 10 districts where each one will have 500 A voters and 500 B voters, but it's also possible to have 8 districts with 600 A voters and 400 B voters and two districts with 100 A voters and 900 B voters. In the first configuration, you'll end up with some tough campaigns and probably average 5 A seats and 5 B seats. In the second, you'll always have 8 A seats and 2 B seats. That's the essence of gerrymandering: you distribute your voters to maximise the number of seats.
You can automate creating constituencies with even numbers, but that's also biased. The real solution is to move away from single-representative constituencies and closer to an electoral system where every vote counts.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The actual evidence they used (had you RTFA) is to measure the number of registered Democrats/Republicans in a State in aggregate and then compare it with congressional seats.
It's not going to be exactly equal but you'd expect a State with 70% of the population as registered Democrats compared to 30% Republicans to roughly have a 7:3 (or 6:4, even 5:5) mix of elected Congress-people.
Instead, NC has a heavy 10:3 ratio of Republican vs Democrat Congress-people. And it moved this way after the maps were redrawn after the 2010 census.
So when it comes to Gerrymandering, most of the more "liberal" or even "purple" States have long had laws against it. Many (including CA) have independent councils that must have representatives from both parties in roughly equal proportion drawing the maps.
Only a handful of States (which all happen to be battleground States for elections) have this kind of gerrymandering where the majority legislature controls the maps as well. And they almost all are Republican controlled.
Democrats gerrymander too, don't get me wrong. But they haven't abused it to the extend like the Republicans in NC did. The State has 2.7M (as of 2016) registered Democrats and 2.0M registered Republicans. Yet has 10 R congressmen vs 3 D congressmen.
Yeah, that's why there's no legal challenges to Maryland's gerrymandering at all. Oh, wait...
Supreme Court agrees to hear Maryland redistricting case
Gerrymandering has been an issue since the start of the Republic. Even California has issues with it's redistricting. Great, they have an unelected commission to decide their districts. Which has been highly unfavorable to the GOP party even though it was initially promoted by the GOP in California. They risked their political power because they thought it a good idea. My initial point.
I am not convinced the democrats have solved the issue particularly so because you now can have a democrat run against a democrat. A real choice in the election!
"Fair" has nothing to do with Law once it is passed.
Maybe you should review the equal protection clause.
From this: https://www.brennancenter.org/...
"At a statewide level, Wisconsin is a quintessential battleground where races are often decided by only a few percentage points. Contrast that to the state assembly map the Republicans drew: In 2012, they won 60 of the 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly despite winning only 48.6% of the two-party state-wide vote; in 2014, they won 63 seats with only 52% of the state-wide vote."
Don't get me wrong, this is not a partisan issue as both sides have historically tried to use gerrymandering to influence elections, it is just that lately the Republicans have been particularly aggressive and good at it.
I'm running to represent Maryland's 7th district. It looks like a dragon coming out of a volcano, so I'd quite like to not see it changed much at all, except maybe to include the Starbucks in Mt. Washington because it's readily-accessible by public transportation and highway.
The point is to represent these particular people in Congress. I've actually left campaign material on Elijah Cummings's door--I'm running for his seat and I used to live on his street, just a few blocks down. Andy Harris may lose his seat because Allison Galbraith is extremely popular in his own community--she lives right in the same neighborhood.
We have local elections for local legislative districts, putting Delegates and State Senators in place to change State law. Congress changes Federal law. My jurisdiction includes the Baltimore Inner Harbor, and my constituents want me to lobby for Federal money to help restore the Chesapeake Bay due to simple environmentalism and its incredible economic value (lots of fishing, tourism, and the like going on there). Representatives of other districts have less focus on the Bay.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Political affiliation isn't a protect class.
No but the right to vote and to have your vote count IS protected. Don't confuse the mechanism with the result. Gerrymandering doesn't just affect members of a given political party.
To insist that the redistricting somehow represents the greater population is the usurpation of redistricting task by the courts.
Not even slightly. Courts are the only (ostensibly) neutral party here and their job is to ensure that voters rights are not trod upon. I'm not a member of either the republicans or democrats but I live in a gerrymandered district and so my right to vote is de-facto disenfranchised if I happen to not like the ruling party's candidate. That is a perfect use for a court to protect people like me who otherwise would effectively lose their vote.
Where does the constitution restrict the judicial branch from making a ruling in any matter involving either the legislative or executive branch?
A specific restriction isn't necessary, because the judicial is only empowered to do the things which the constitution and the law states the judiciary is empowered to do. The Judicial branch is ONLY able to make their rulings on what is law and Orders enjoining against furthering harm from violating the law or the constitution based on the dispute before them --- the Legislative and Executive branches have their own agency (Independent judgement), and the Judicials are not superior to the Legislative or the Executive branch in their power or authority: Fundamentally the judiciary IS RESTRICTED and cannot order around other branches, And if there is a disagreement --- it's called a constitutional crisis, because they are 3 equal branches of government.
Our constitutional form of government is NOT a hierarchy with the Judiciary branch at the top, and our supreme court is not a "Ruling Committee" who can hand down any order desired to alter or delete any law at will or increase or decrease or change the enforcement of any law in whatsoever manager as the committee desires. The Judicial branch makes orders based on law, and it is up to the elected leaders and bureaucrats in other branches of government to follow lawful orders (or to ignore them, as they have in some cases)
In the same manner that the president cannot order the court to rule X on case Y, or order the court to consider case Z, and the legislature cannot pass a law that the court must never review law Y and the feds can't pass a law that state laws about X be held unconstitutional; the Judiciary has its own independent agency that cannot be taken on by other branches of government -- its rulings on cases.
In exactly the same way the Legislative and Executive branches of government have specific agency in the powers granted them by the constitution --
the judiciary does NOT have the power to override the agency of other branches of government and take actions on their behalf, And the judiciary does not have the power to Order another branch of government to do X with their agency ----- for example, the court cannot order congress to pass law Y, or create tax Z. Although the court CAN invalidate law Y or provide taxpayer relief by declaring debts under tax Z invalid.
The Judicial branch is not empowered to take over any legislative or executive duty and exercise that role on its own.
If the law doesn't say the court can draw their own map, then the court does not have the power to simply draw their own map, and that is true even if the legislature fails or refuses to draw a new map on its own that satisfies the court.