BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
Gerrymandering
- Thread starter BigRedBuster
- Start date
TGHusker
New member
Thought I'd copy SOME OF the article here - too important to miss the full read - so go to the website noted above. I made bold several important points. Note the final bold copied here:
The brief from current and former House members noted that Mr. Reagan had referred to gerrymandering in 1987 as “a national scandal” and called for “an end to the anti-democratic
and un-American practice of gerrymandering congressional districts.”
WASHINGTON — Breaking ranks with many of their fellow Republicans, a group of prominent politicians filed briefs on Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to rule that extreme political gerrymandering — the drawing of voting districts to give lopsided advantages to the party in power — violates the Constitution.
The briefs were signed by Republicans including Senator John McCain of Arizona; Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio; Bob Dole, the former Republican Senate leader from Kansas and the party’s 1996 presidential nominee; the former senators John C. Danforth of Missouri, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming; and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former governor of California.
“Partisan gerrymandering has become a tool for powerful interests to distort the democratic process,” reads a brief filed by Mr. McCain and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, on Oct. 3.
The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican State Leadership Committee all filed briefs on the other side. They urged the Supreme Court to reject a challenge
Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who served as United States solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, and who is among the lawyers representing Republican politicians urging the Supreme Court to reject extreme political gerrymanders, said it was important to take the long view and to act on principle.
“It’s not a partisan issue,” he said. “We are working for our republic, and not for Republicans.”
In the 1980s, when Democrats had more political power in state legislatures, they were enthusiastic proponents of partisan gerrymandering, Mr. Simpson, the former Wyoming senator, said.
“The Democrats laid the groundwork and set the template, and then Republicans figured they better get cracking, too,” he said.
The two parties’ legal arguments have flipped as their power shifted, Professor Fried said.
These days, both parties are using their power more aggressively than ever, according to a brief filed by 65 current and former state legislators, 26 of them Republicans.
The phenomenon is commonplace, Mr. Schwarzenegger said.
“It’s a rigged system,” he said. “You have situations where you get 50 percent of the vote but only 35 percent of the seats. That is corrupt. That is incorrect. It’s unfair to the people.”
“They know that elected officials’ legitimacy comes from being freely chosen by voters, not through seizing power from voters to keep themselves in control,” added
The challengers say they have identified a mathematical formula to help identify unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, joined a brief filed by current and former members of the House of Representatives urging the Supreme Court to reject the Wisconsin maps. He said partisan gerrymandering had contributed to toxic polarization in the House of Representatives.
“You have 435 districts in the nation, and there’s probably only 20 or so that are legitimate swing districts,” he said. “For the 415 safe seats, their main election is in the primary, not the general. When the main election is in the primary, you legislate accordingly. The result has been a growing cavernous divide, which has created a Hatfield v. McCoy environment in the legislature, and it’s hurting the American people.”
The brief from current and former House members noted that Mr. Reagan had referred to gerrymandering in 1987 as “a national scandal” and called for “an end to the anti-democratic
and un-American practice of gerrymandering congressional districts.”
Mr. Simpson said it was time for the Supreme Court to heed that call.
“This case is long overdue,” he said. “Quite literally, gerrymandering is killing our system. Most Americans think politicians are corrupt, and when they’re rigging maps to pick their own constituents, they’re giving them reason to believe it.”
The brief from current and former House members noted that Mr. Reagan had referred to gerrymandering in 1987 as “a national scandal” and called for “an end to the anti-democratic
and un-American practice of gerrymandering congressional districts.”
WASHINGTON — Breaking ranks with many of their fellow Republicans, a group of prominent politicians filed briefs on Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to rule that extreme political gerrymandering — the drawing of voting districts to give lopsided advantages to the party in power — violates the Constitution.
The briefs were signed by Republicans including Senator John McCain of Arizona; Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio; Bob Dole, the former Republican Senate leader from Kansas and the party’s 1996 presidential nominee; the former senators John C. Danforth of Missouri, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming; and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former governor of California.
“Partisan gerrymandering has become a tool for powerful interests to distort the democratic process,” reads a brief filed by Mr. McCain and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, on Oct. 3.
The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican State Leadership Committee all filed briefs on the other side. They urged the Supreme Court to reject a challenge
Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who served as United States solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, and who is among the lawyers representing Republican politicians urging the Supreme Court to reject extreme political gerrymanders, said it was important to take the long view and to act on principle.
“It’s not a partisan issue,” he said. “We are working for our republic, and not for Republicans.”
In the 1980s, when Democrats had more political power in state legislatures, they were enthusiastic proponents of partisan gerrymandering, Mr. Simpson, the former Wyoming senator, said.
“The Democrats laid the groundwork and set the template, and then Republicans figured they better get cracking, too,” he said.
The two parties’ legal arguments have flipped as their power shifted, Professor Fried said.
These days, both parties are using their power more aggressively than ever, according to a brief filed by 65 current and former state legislators, 26 of them Republicans.
The phenomenon is commonplace, Mr. Schwarzenegger said.
“It’s a rigged system,” he said. “You have situations where you get 50 percent of the vote but only 35 percent of the seats. That is corrupt. That is incorrect. It’s unfair to the people.”
“They know that elected officials’ legitimacy comes from being freely chosen by voters, not through seizing power from voters to keep themselves in control,” added
The challengers say they have identified a mathematical formula to help identify unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, joined a brief filed by current and former members of the House of Representatives urging the Supreme Court to reject the Wisconsin maps. He said partisan gerrymandering had contributed to toxic polarization in the House of Representatives.
“You have 435 districts in the nation, and there’s probably only 20 or so that are legitimate swing districts,” he said. “For the 415 safe seats, their main election is in the primary, not the general. When the main election is in the primary, you legislate accordingly. The result has been a growing cavernous divide, which has created a Hatfield v. McCoy environment in the legislature, and it’s hurting the American people.”
The brief from current and former House members noted that Mr. Reagan had referred to gerrymandering in 1987 as “a national scandal” and called for “an end to the anti-democratic
and un-American practice of gerrymandering congressional districts.”
Mr. Simpson said it was time for the Supreme Court to heed that call.
“This case is long overdue,” he said. “Quite literally, gerrymandering is killing our system. Most Americans think politicians are corrupt, and when they’re rigging maps to pick their own constituents, they’re giving them reason to believe it.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Kiyoat Husker
New member
Props to the Republicans wise enough to take the "long view" on this issue. Even though Republicans have been the latest beneficiary of partisan gerrymandering, really the main actors are big-money special interests groups. Fighting this practice is a win for the average American.
Kiyoat Husker
New member
Good article, but this quote is still WAY too long IMO. I thought I'd highlight the part that was important to me.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
Reminder that a huge SC case is being heard this week.
Whitford v. Gill will begin opening arguments Tuesday. This is the last, best chance we'll have in the foreseeable future to get a definitive ruling against partisan gerrymandering and move towards a more fair representation system. I really hope Kennedy does the right thing, because he is likely the vote that swings it either way. It makes me a bit sick to my stomach about him declining to rule against gerrymandering again.
Here is an excellent podcast from FiveThirtyEight summarizing how Whitford came about and what exactly they're trying to prove to Kennedy (and others) about why partisan gerrymandering is bad.
It's a short episode... only about 35 minutes. I'd definitely give it a listen if you have the time.
Whitford v. Gill will begin opening arguments Tuesday. This is the last, best chance we'll have in the foreseeable future to get a definitive ruling against partisan gerrymandering and move towards a more fair representation system. I really hope Kennedy does the right thing, because he is likely the vote that swings it either way. It makes me a bit sick to my stomach about him declining to rule against gerrymandering again.
Here is an excellent podcast from FiveThirtyEight summarizing how Whitford came about and what exactly they're trying to prove to Kennedy (and others) about why partisan gerrymandering is bad.
It's a short episode... only about 35 minutes. I'd definitely give it a listen if you have the time.
Danny Bateman
Donor
Update:
TL;DR: Kennedy directed ALL of his questioning during oral arguments at the state of Wisconsin (the defendants in this case, arguing FOR the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering). He asked NOTHING of the plaintiffs (the people challenging the gerrymandered map). The plaintiffs have a formula they devised - the efficiency gap - that is supposed to measure exactly how gerrymandered the map was (i.e., how much it helped Republicans & hurt Democrats). A workable metric to measure gerrymandering for courts is something Kennedy explicitly stated as the reason he could NOT vote against gerrymandering last time (2004).
Their hypothesis is the fact he grilled the defendants makes it much more likely he'll vote AGAINST them and gerrymandering. They've got stats that back it up. Apparently, in lawyer speak, "if you get questioned, you're going to lose."
We have to hope!
TL;DR: Kennedy directed ALL of his questioning during oral arguments at the state of Wisconsin (the defendants in this case, arguing FOR the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering). He asked NOTHING of the plaintiffs (the people challenging the gerrymandered map). The plaintiffs have a formula they devised - the efficiency gap - that is supposed to measure exactly how gerrymandered the map was (i.e., how much it helped Republicans & hurt Democrats). A workable metric to measure gerrymandering for courts is something Kennedy explicitly stated as the reason he could NOT vote against gerrymandering last time (2004).
Their hypothesis is the fact he grilled the defendants makes it much more likely he'll vote AGAINST them and gerrymandering. They've got stats that back it up. Apparently, in lawyer speak, "if you get questioned, you're going to lose."
We have to hope!
Kiyoat Husker
New member
RedDenver
New member
If you read the article, there's statistical data to support their conclusion but it's far from a certainty as Kennedy has done the opposite 39% of the time. (177 times has voted against when directing zero words towards that side out of 449 time he directed zero words towards a party.)