US Politics

[ChaddyP]

[QUOTE="Carolina Red, post: 24336359, member: 100389"]It disenfranchises in the same way the Electoral College does. As a resident of South Carolina, my vote for president has basically never counted, even when Obama won.

The problem is that legally, that isn’t what disenfranchisement means.

In Cooper v. Harris they were able to prove a clear racial motivation in the drawing of those districts. You’d have to be able to do that many times over to accomplish what you’re saying, and you’d have to be able to do it for districts gerrymandered by both parties.

I am very much in favor of this, even wrote about it in college.[/QUOTE]
I understand what you're saying. That's a fair remark on the 14th amendment issues. But I feel like alot more of racial gerrymandering will take place now with this ruling. And now they will have the backing of this new ruling to do mostly whatever they want under the guise of what is now legal partisan gerrymandering

 

[Carolina Red]

I understand what you're saying. That's a fair remark on the 14th amendment issues. But I feel like alot more of racial gerrymandering will take place now with this ruling. And now they will have the backing of this new ruling to do mostly whatever they want under the guise of what is now legal partisan gerrymandering

With respect to the recent ruling, the districts in question in NC were redrawn with 0 racial demographic data, which is why they were allowed to exist under the Rucho v. Common Cause ruling. I haven’t read about the Maryland Democrat districts involved in Rucho, but would imagine the same applies to them.

That standard would have to be upheld. Cooper wasn’t overturned by Rucho, so it still remains as legal precedence for any racially motivated redistricting case brought before the Court.

 

[berbatrick]

The legal argument would have to be that gerrymandering literally disenfranchises people. It doesn’t. And both parties do it.

To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen. The fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for overweighting or diluting the efficacy of his vote. The complexions of societies and civilizations change, often with amazing rapidity. A nation once primarily rural in character becomes predominantly urban. Representation schemes once fair and equitable become archaic and outdated. But the basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged - the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Population is, of necessity, the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgment in legislative apportionment controversies. A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. This is an essential part of the concept of a government of laws and not men. This is at the heart of Lincoln's vision of "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.

 

[Carolina Red]

Reynolds v. Sims

That finding threw out an Alabama redistricting that didn’t put roughly equal populations in its districts.

This still does nothing to show that the federal government can interfere with partisanship in redistricting.

Again...

Is it wrong? Yes.

Does the federal government have power over it? I’ve not seen it.

 

[berbatrick]

That finding threw out an Alabama redistricting that didn’t put roughly equal populations in its districts.

This still does nothing to show that the federal government can interfere with partisanship in redistricting.

Again...

Is it wrong? Yes.

Does the federal government have power over it? I’ve not seen it.

The same logic can work for most kinds of gerrymandering.

 

[Carolina Red]

The same logic can work for most kinds of gerrymandering.

The logic, yes, but SCOTUS decisions can be very narrow, and the Constitution simply does not state what you and I both want it to.

If the district populations are roughly equal, and the gerrymander isn’t racially/ethnically/religiously motivated, then it basically goes to the state’s own mechanism for determining if it is to be thrown out or not.

What you need to look at is the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

 

[Eboue]

none of these problems exist with a revolutionary workers council in every town

 

[Carolina Red]

 

[berbatrick]

The logic, yes, but SCOTUS decisions can be very narrow, and the Constitution simply does not state what you and I both want it to.

If the district populations are roughly equal, and the gerrymander isn’t racially/ethnically/religiously motivated, then it basically goes to the state’s own mechanism for determining if it is to be thrown out or not.

What you need to look at is the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

Reynold v Sims was a very controversial decision which, due to the very logic you are using, caused outrage, including threats of impeachment and constitutional amendments. There are no particular words saying districts have to be divided equally or that this is a federal subject, Warren used some common sense to infer that. The majority decision, which he wrote had the broadest interpretation.

Here's another line from it

• 
  The concept of `we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights. The dissent strongly accused the Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process: "the Court's action now bringing them (state legislative apportionments) within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment amounts to nothing less than an exercise of the amending power by this Court."
...
Reynolds v. Sims created much controversy. In response to the decision, U.S. Senator Everett Dirkson of Illinois proposed a constitutional amendment that would expressly permit unequal legislative districts. The senator argued that "the forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers." To hold otherwise, he claimed, would mean that "six million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their four million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties." Dirkson's proposed amendment was ultimately defeated.

The Reynolds decision, which Warren considered to be his finest, ultimately prevailed over Senator Dirkson's and others' arguments that the Supreme Court has no business meddling in "political" state apportionment schemes. Respect for state sovereignty must bow to the republic's most basic principles, liberty and equality, and the right to an equal vote is the necessary means to securing both.

 

[Carolina Red]

Reynold v Sims was a very controversial decision which, due to the very logic you are using, caused outrage, including threats of impeachment and constitutional amendments. There are no particular words saying districts have to be divided equally or that this is a federal subject, Warren used some common sense to infer that. The majority decision, which he wrote had the broadest interpretation.

Here's another line from it

Reynold v. Sims was also a case deciding apportionment of Alabama state legislative districts, not for the federal House of Representatives, where equal population in districts had already been settled by the 1941 Apportionment Act.

Also, as Warren states...

Plaintiffs below alleged that the last apportionment of the Alabama Legislature was based on the 1900 federal census, despite the requirement of the State Constitution that the legislature be reapportioned decennially. They asserted that, since the population growth in the State from 1900 to 1960 had been uneven, Jefferson and other counties were now victims of serious discrimination with respect to the allocation of legislative representation. As a result of the failure of the legislature to reapportion itself, plaintiffs asserted, they were denied "equal suffrage in free and equal elections . . . and the equal protection of the laws" in violation of the Alabama Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The complaint asserted that plaintiffs had no other adequate remedy, and that they had exhausted all forms of relief other than that available through the federal courts.

Alabama wasn’t even abiding by their own state constitution in this case.

Warren also stated...

A predominant consideration in determining whether a State's legislative apportionment scheme constitutes an invidious discrimination violative of rights asserted under the Equal Protection Clause is that the rights allegedly impaired are individual and personal in nature.

I do not see how this could be argued to apply to partisanship, as partisan preference is something that is easily changed, unlike something like race, and many states do not have voter partisanship records or registrations.

 

[Carolina Red]

Either way, I would love it if all forms of gerrymandering could be abolished, I’m just not optimistic that they can. Especially in federal courts.

The closest we could get is to go back to pre-1929 when federal districts were required to be “contiguous, compact, and equally populated”.

Within that, there’s still wiggle room for parties.

 

[berbatrick]

Reynold v. Sims was also a case deciding apportionment of Alabama state legislative districts, not for the federal House of Representatives, where equal population in districts had already been settled by the 1941 Apportionment Act.
Also, as Warren states...
Alabama wasn’t even abiding by their own state constitution in this case.
Warren also stated...
I do not see how this could be argued to apply to partisanship, as partisan preference is something that is easily changed, unlike something like race, and many states do not have voter partisanship records or registrations.

You are pointing out parts of the decision. The overall verdict - the majority/the precedent - was the broadest ones which included the lines I posted, not the narrow one about the Alabama state constitution. That is why it led to redrawing of district lines virtually nationwide and not just in Alabama or places that had equally specific issues. That is why the effort against it - to the extent of passing a constitutional amendment - was almost successful despite such efforts so rare.

The concept of `we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.
...
The Reynolds decision, which Warren considered to be his finest, ultimately prevailed over Senator Dirkson's and others' arguments that the Supreme Court has no business meddling in "political" state apportionment schemes. Respect for state sovereignty must bow to the republic's most basic principles, liberty and equality, and the right to an equal vote is the necessary means to securing both.

The reason you think this case is constitutionally correct is how old it is - this was, I repeat, a massive violation of what was considered the scope of the court and the 14th amendment and was seen as such at the time.

Another line, not derived from the constitution, but found in the case:

legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests

Richard Pildes, New York University
Reynolds v. Sims (1964). The court’s one-person, one-vote ruling was perhaps the most radical decision in its history. It required every legislature in the United States, and the U.S. Congress, to be dramatically restructured so that representatives to any elected body represent the same number of people.

It relies on a previous case, where the dissent, the minority, the side that lost, stated:

Appellants invoke the right to vote and to have their votes counted. But they are permitted to vote and their votes are counted. They go to the polls, they cast their ballots, they send their representatives to the state councils. Their complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful.

There is more than enough in the broad lines of this case to suggest that gerrymandering along political lines would have been struck down by that court (which was roughly the same court that decided Brown v Board and Furman v Georgia, 2 other massively controversial decisions at that time/today).

 

[Carolina Red]

You are pointing out parts of the decision. The overall verdict - the majority/the precedent - was the broadest ones which included the lines I posted, not the narrow one about the Alabama state constitution. That is why it led to redrawing of district lines virtually nationwide and not just in Alabama or places that had equally specific issues. That is why the effort against it - to the extent of passing a constitutional amendment - was almost successful despite such efforts so rare.



The reason you think this case is constitutionally correct is how old it is - this was, I repeat, a massive violation of what was considered the scope of the court and the 14th amendment and was seen as such at the time.

Another line, not derived from the constitution, but found in the case:





It relies on a previous case, where the dissent, the minority, the side that lost, stated:



There is more than enough in the broad lines of this case to suggest that gerrymandering along political lines would have been struck down by that court (which was roughly the same court that decided Brown v Board and Furman v Georgia, 2 other massively controversial decisions at that time/today).

And you realize, that as radical as this decision was, that it didn’t even mention partisanship based redistricting?

There is a reason for that, and that’s all I’m trying to point out here.

 

[berbatrick]

And you realize, that as radical as this decision was, that it didn’t even mention partisanship based redistricting?

There is a reason for that, and that’s all I’m trying to point out here.

If you read the court's reasoning, it is quite obvious that that court would have struck down partisan redistricting.

In Gray v. Sanders, we stated:

• 
  "How then can one person be given twice or ten times the voting power of another person in a statewide election merely because he lives in a rural area or because he lives in the smallest rural county? Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote - whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income, and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit. This is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of `we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions."

Continuing, we stated that "there is no indication in the Constitution that homesite or occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State." And, finally, we concluded: "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing - one person, one vote."

Wesberry clearly established that the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to race, sex, economic status, or place of residence within a State. Our problem, then, is to ascertain, in the instant cases, whether there are any constitutionally cognizable principles which would justify departures from the basic standard of equality among voters in the apportionment of seats in state legislatures.

Unlike race and sex, occupation, income, and address are not innate characteristics. Yet the court decided that differences in such cannot be used to dilute votes.

(edited)

 

[Carolina Red]

If you read the court's reasoning, it is quite obvious that that court would have struck down partisan redistricting.


Unlike race and sex, occupation, income, and address are not innate characteristics. Yet the court decided that differences in such cannot be used to dilute votes.

(edited)

I have read the decision of the court, and I simply disagree. Had they felt they had the power to add “whatever their party”, they would have.

Look, I want them to have that power the same as you, but I don’t see it.

 

[berbatrick]

I have read the decision of the court, and I simply disagree. Had they felt they had the power to add “whatever their party”, they would have.

Look, I want them to have that power the same as you, but I don’t see it.

Yes and I think if this case was brought before those judges they would have struck it down without pause. The fact that this abomination holds today is a reflection of the composition of the court, just as Plessy v Ferguson/Brown v Board and Bowers v. Hardwick/Lawrence v Texas are reflections of their courts, especially the latter two which were on very similar laws and had to operate under the exact same constitution.

 

[Carolina Red]

Yes and I think if this case was brought before those judges they would have struck it down without pause. The fact that this abomination holds today is a reflection of the composition of the court, just as Plessy v Ferguson/Brown v Board and Bowers v. Hardwick/Lawrence v Texas are reflections of their courts, especially the latter two which were on very similar laws and had to operate under the exact same constitution.

If the Warren court had wanted to be that broad, considering what you've said about the Reynolds decision, don't you think they would have?

To me, the question is "why didn't they", rather than "what would have happened if".

 

[Carolina Red]

While I don't like it, I believe Roberts is legally correct here...

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the conservative majority. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

The decision upheld a Democrat led partisan gerrymander in Maryland and a Republican partisan gerrymander in North Carolina.

 

[berbatrick]

If the Warren court had wanted to be that broad, considering what you've said about the Reynolds decision, don't you think they would have?

To me, the question is "why didn't they", rather than "what would have happened if".

They struck down racial gerrymandering, and then struck down regional gerrymandering in state legislatures, and then struck down unequal Congressional districts, in 3 separate cases. It's unfortunate that they didn't have the chance to end this rubbish as well.

A related component of Warren's leadership was his focus on broad ethical principles, rather than narrower interpretative structures. Describing the latter as "conventional reasoning patterns," Professor Mark Tushnet suggests Warren often disregarded these in groundbreaking cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Reynolds v. Sims and Miranda v. Arizona, where such traditional sources of precedent were stacked against him. Tushnet suggests Warren's principles "were philosophical, political, and intuitive, not legal in the conventional technical sense."[6]

Warren's leadership was characterized by remarkable consensus on the court, particularly in some of the most controversial cases. These included Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Cooper v. Aaron, which were unanimously decided, as well as Abington School District v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale, each striking down religious recitations in schools with only one dissent. In an unusual action, the decision in Cooper was personally signed by all nine justices, with the three new members of the Court adding that they supported and would have joined the Court's decision in Brown v. Board.[7]

Fallon says that, "Some thrilled to the approach of the Warren Court. Many law professors were perplexed, often sympathetic to the Court's results but skeptical of the soundness of its constitutional reasoning. And some of course were horrified."

I'm re-posting the relevant parts from the judgement because they are crystal clear about what the court believed:

The concept of `we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters.
...
Our problem, then, is to ascertain, in the instant cases, whether there are any constitutionally cognizable principles which would justify departures from the basic standard of equality among voters in the apportionment of seats in state legislatures.

It would not be enough to say what Roberts said about court authority, but for the states to provide proof that partisanship was a "constitutionally cognisable principle" enough to "justify a departure from equality", which is obviously absurd and wouldn't stand. The whole burden shifts if you apply that standard. His objection that this was a political question was the major objection in Warren's time too.

 

[Carolina Red]

@berbatrick - you don't need to repost parts of a decision I've read. We're not going to agree on this.

Have you read Vieth v. Jubilerer and Davis v. Bandemer?

 

[berbatrick]

I mean forget actually worthwile people like Brennan or Marshall or Douglas or Warren. Take Anthony Kennedy, author of Citizens United and part of Bush v Gore:

Before retiring last year, Kennedy had been the swing justice on previous gerrymandering cases. He had said that partisan gerrymandering was within the purview of the court but that the justices should hold off on ruling any particular gerrymander unconstitutional until a manageable standard for measuring gerrymandering emerged. Since he took that position in 2004, reformers had been attempting to find such a standard. Legal scholars and statisticians developed various measurementsto try to win over the court, but without Kennedy, those efforts turned out to be futile.

 

[berbatrick]

cool

 

[berbatrick]

Anyway the reason the judgement was the way it is, is because Republicans control more states than Democrats. The few that the Dems have, they need to immediately start disenfranchising and making permanent majorities.

 

[Carolina Red]

I mean forget actually worthwile people like Brennan or Marshall or Douglas or Warren. Take Anthony Kennedy, author of Citizens United and part of Bush v Gore:

He wrote that in a concurrent opinion to the ruling in Vieth v. Jubilerer...hence me asking if you've read it.

If Kennedy were still on the court, he would still need to see something that represented a "workable standard" to apply to the case to believe that a partisan gerrymander case was justiciable.

 

[berbatrick]

Plurality Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas

Spoiler

I pointed to Kennedy as a shithead who might yet have voted properly on this case, since the entire basis of the current case was his concurring opinion about a manageable standard.

Since you want to continue this, here goes:

The "One Person, One Vote" doctrine which requires electoral districts to be apportioned according to population, thus making each district roughly equal in population, was further cemented in the cases that followed Baker v. Carr, including Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), which concerned state county districts; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), which concerned state legislature districts; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), which concerned U.S. Congressional districts; and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), which concerned local government districts, a decision which was upheld in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989).[5]

They didn't mention partisanship in their case, so it's not something they would have accepted as a violation...but somehow they didn't individually mention state county, state legislature, Congressional, local and city govts in that judgement, and the ruling was extended to all those levels separately

You can come out and directly say that the Warren court was wrong or stupid or over-reaching or unconstitutional , and that the current luminaries have got it right and are strictly constitutional, but it's no point pretending that the court which decided Reynold v Sims would stand for this.

 

[Carolina Red]

@berbatrick - the reality is this... partisanship was brought up in 1986, where the Court ruled the case was justiciable but that no "workable standard" existed by which they could make a ruling on. The Court revisited this idea in 2004 and decided that since there is no "workable standard" that partisan gerrymandering should not be considered justiciable, as if there is nothing for them to base a ruling on. It was revisited again for various reasons in 2015 to 2018, during which none of those cases demonstrated a "workable standard". According to the Court, this workable standard still doesn't exist.

Roberts does, however, point out that state legislatures and Congress do possess the authority to do something about partisan gerrymandering, and I pointed this out to you earlier, and I'll say it again...

What you need to look at is the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

That is where a federal remedy to this could be found.

 

[Carolina Red]

Btw, here's the ruling in full: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

 

[berbatrick]

You can come out and directly say that the Warren court was wrong or stupid or over-reaching or unconstitutional , and that the current luminaries have got it right and are strictly constitutional, but it's no point pretending that the court which decided Reynold v Sims would stand for this.

...

Roberts does, however, point out that state legislatures and Congress do possess the authority to do something about partisan gerrymandering

Literally what the dissents in the Warren court cases said.

 

[Carolina Red]

You can come out and directly say that the Warren court was wrong or stupid or over-reaching or unconstitutional , and that the current luminaries have got it right and are strictly constitutional, but it's no point pretending that the court which decided Reynold v Sims would stand for this.

Okay...

Literally what the dissents in the Warren court cases said.

And literally what I said for you to look at 4 hours ago.

Difference between then and now? The law pre-1929 could actually curtail the partisan gerrymandering by setting requirements for what is "contiguous, compact, and equally populated"... which I pointed out 3 hours ago.

Roberts even references the Warren Court being correct in deciding population and race based cases when he explains why the Court should leave partisan cases to states and Congress...

Appellants suggest that, through the Elections Clause, the Framers set aside electoral issues such as the one before us as questions that only Congress can resolve. See Baker, 369 U. S., at 217. We do not agree. In two areas— one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering—our cases have held that there is a role for the courts with respect to at least some issues that could arise from a State’s drawing of congressional districts. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I ). But the history is not irrelevant. The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and considered what to do about them. They settled on a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “it will . . . not be denied that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter, and ultimately in the former.” The Federalist No. 59, p. 362 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). At no point was there a suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play. Nor was there any indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts doing such a thing.

 

[berbatrick]

Okay...

And literally what I said for you to look at 4 hours ago.

Difference between then and now? The 1929 law could actually curtail the partisan gerrymandering by setting requirements for what is "contiguous, compact, and equally populated"... which I pointed out 3 hours ago.

But the pre-1929 law is dead, and was long dead when Reynolds was decided. That series of judgements ignored the legislative remedy for a reason.

It is tough to get what you're saying here, but are you saying you disagree with the Warren court on this?
I quoted from that case, highlighting the most expansive sections, to show that there is a US legal tradition prioritising basic equality over narrow interpretations on the question of redistricting., a tradition that has set a lot of precedents that still stand. There is of course a contrary tradition too, which is what this court is part of.

And finally, are you suggesting that Congress is a remedy not in a theoretical but a practical sense - i.e., they will actually pass some reform?

 

[Carolina Red]

But the pre-1929 law is dead, and was long dead when Reynolds was decided. That series of judgements ignored the legislative remedy for a reason.

Reason for the law changing:

Due to increased immigration and a large rural-to-urban shift in population from 1910 to 1920, the new Republican Congress refused to reapportion the House of Representatives with the traditional contiguous, single-member districts stipulations because such a reapportionment would have redistricted many House members out of their districts.[9][10] A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats, but many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House chamber did not have adequate seats for 483 members. By 1929, no reapportionment had been made since 1911, and there was vast representational inequity, measured by the average district size; by 1929 some states had districts twice as large as others due to population growth and demographic shift.

Reason for the Warren Court acting:
Read Roberts statement on it.

It is tough to get what you're saying here, but are you saying you disagree with the Warren court on this?
I quoted from that case, highlighting the most expansive sections, to show that there is a US legal tradition prioritising basic equality over narrow interpretations on the question of redistricting., a tradition that has set a lot of precedents that still stand. There is of course a contrary tradition too, which is what this court is part of.

Am I saying the Warren Court was wrong in deciding population and race based gerrymandering cases?

No. I am only talking about the Court’s ability to decide on partisan based gerrymandering, and I believe I made that clear awhile back...

Warren also stated [.snip.]
I do not see how this could be argued to apply to partisanship, as partisan preference is something that is easily changed, unlike something like race, and many states do not have voter partisanship records or registrations.

Either way, I would love it if all forms of gerrymandering could be abolished, I’m just not optimistic that they can. Especially in federal courts.

The closest we could get is to go back to pre-1929 when federal districts were required to be “contiguous, compact, and equally populated”.

Within that, there’s still wiggle room for parties.

And finally, are you suggesting that Congress is a remedy not in a theoretical but a practical sense - i.e., they will actually pass some reform?

Yes, Congress could be looked to for remedy much faster than the SCOTUS.

 

[RedChip]

It’s one thing to make an automatic association when hearing the word concentration camp and another thing to be offended by the word.

Indeed.

 

[Red Dreams]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats_n_5d155cece4b07f6ca57ac4cb

We need to impeach Pelosi first.

 

[Red Dreams]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez_n_5d19949ce4b07f6ca57f995d

Ocasio-Cortez Tells Job-Shaming Republicans To ‘Take Their Classism To The Trash’

 

[Red Defence]

 

[Eboue]

steny hoyer is 80 years old. fecking retire and write a memoir you stupid old bitch

 

[Eboue]

nancy pelosi was born before pearl harbor was attacked. what kind of freak do you have to be to spend your last years on earth schmoozing corporate donors

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[sun_tzu]

nancy pelosi was born before pearl harbor was attacked. what kind of freak do you have to be to spend your last years on earth schmoozing corporate donors

Coincidence?
dont tell the Donald or it will be birther shit all over again

 

[sun_tzu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

somebody in wisconsin has earned a payrise by the looks of that