Supreme Court tosses Republican-drawn North Carolina voting districts

[Ripster42]

Gerrymandering should be outright illegal nationwide already. Sad it isn't. Especially since GOP gerrymandering is 100% racially motivated.

It is illegal as stated in the post directly above yours. It's just currently impossible to prove according to the supreme court, though they are revisiting the issue this year to determine if it can now be proven.

[Slybak]

It's not legal, the supreme court has just said they don't have a test to determine when a party is gerrymandering along partisan lines and so cannot rule on the issue of specific maps (Vlieth v Jubelirer & Davis v Bandemer).

Technically true, but about half the court insists that such a test is outright impossible to devise. Its the remainder of the court that is torn on what kind of test to use.

[fengosa]

Both Democrats and Republicans do this, whoever is power tries to keep the edge.

Can you provide a link that shows Dems have been taken to SCOTUS for similar actions?

[Ripster42]

Technically true, but about half the court insists that such a test is outright impossible to devise. Its the remainder of the court that is torn on what kind of test to use.

They're revisiting the case with more advanced analytics this year. If the court didn't think there was any change in the status quo, they would not have taken up the case.

[Slybak]

They're revisiting the case with more advanced analytics this year. If the court didn't think there was any change in the status quo, they would not have taken up the case.

You only need four justices to vote to grant a writ of certiorari in order to hear a case, and its tradition for the Chief Justice to provide the fourth vote in favor of granting cert, regardless of their own thoughts on the matter, if there are three justices already in favor. And we already know from Vlieth that there are already four judges in favor of some kind of test.

[Ripster42]

You only need four justices to vote to grant a writ of certiorari in order to hear a case, and its tradition for the Chief Justice to provide the fourth vote in favor of granting cert, regardless of their own thoughts on the matter, if there are three justices already in favor. And we already know from Vlieth that there are already four judges in favor of some kind of test.

Only 4 of the justices from vlieth are still on the supreme court. 2 outright said that it was already actionable (RBG&Breyer), and one said that a test could later reach the benchmark to make it actionable (Kennedy). The only other justice is thomas, who ruled for the plurality decision in vlieth, but the majority decision in the NC case. He's likely to reach the same conclusion in as in the vlieth case though, and rule against the case.

The new justices: sotomayor (likely for), kagan (likely for), roberts (likely against considering his FCC v citizens united ruling & OP's NC issue), alito (likely against, see his vote on OP's NC issue, and, you know, the fact that he's alito) and gorsuch, who I have no idea.

So the count is possibly going to hinge on whether or not kennedy (who voted siding with conservatives on the NC issue) thinks the bar has been met to pass judgement yet, as he noted in his concurrent opinion that it would be possible to devise a judicially manageable standard, (this is assuming gorsuch votes against) as the other are likely split 4-4.

Another edit for clarity on gorsuch's likely vote against:

The situation we confront in this case is more than a little reminiscent of the one the Supreme Court faced in Vieth, where the plaintiffs sought to challenge a political gerrymander as unconstitutional. There, 18 years of experimenting by various courts failed to yield any sure standards for litigating those sorts of cases. Here, we encounter an arguably longer history of failed efforts to develop standards for litigating Guarantee Clause cases involving individual citizen initiatives—one extending into the nineteenth century. There, the plaintiffs sought to identify and defend as workable their own set of legal standards at the motion to dismiss stage, but the Court found those efforts unavailing and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Here, the plaintiffs haven’t even attempted to identify workable legal standards for adjudicating their case despite many opportunities over many years. If the law’s promise of treating like cases alike is to mean something, this case should be put to bed now as Vieth’s was then, rather than being destined to drag on forlornly to the same inevitable end. I respectfully dissent.

Though he does leave open a window that there might be a workable legal standard for adjudication. Still, likely no.

[Lellybaby]

Thomas was the 5th vote to secure this decision. Incredibly unusual but hey, a win against Gerrymandering is a win!

[Brubear]

Both Democrats and Republicans do this, whoever is power tries to keep the edge.

Please provide recent examples of Demos doing this, because I can guarantee you that you can find maybe one or two examples (Maryland and an older district in Pennsylvania are the two big ones), whereas the GOP has given us a LOT of recent examples (see: NC, Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, Arizona, etc). This false equivalency of "but the both do it!" doesn't hold water when not only has the GOP drawn the majority of district maps for the last two decades, but in areas where the Dems have drawn the maps you haven't seen near the amount of gerrymandering efforts as the GOP-drawn ones.

[Slybak]

Only 4 of the justices from vlieth are still on the supreme court. 2 outright said that it was already actionable (RBG&Breyer), and one said that a test could later reach the benchmark to make it actionable (Kennedy).

I don't think its a stretch to think that Sotomayor and Kagan are in general agreement with Ginsburg and Breyer, or are at least aligned enough with them to want to hear the new case. And Kennedy also set himself up in Vlieth to at least want to hear new arguments in order to avoid being seen as a hypocrite. So there's a safe assumption of five votes to want to grant cert, and they only really need three if Robert's agrees to the informal practice I outlined above (and I think he always does).

But, again, there's no real correlation between the court voting to grant cert and the court's final decision in the case vis-a-vis agreeing with the arguments.

[Blur4stuff]

Imagine a USA where elections are fair and everyone's vote is equal.

[Ripster42]

I don't think its a stretch to think that Sotomayor and Kagan are in general agreement with Ginsburg and Breyer, or are at least aligned enough with them to want to hear the new case. And Kennedy also set himself up in Vlieth to at least want to hear new arguments in order to avoid being seen as a hypocrite. So there's a safe assumption of five votes to want to grant cert, and they only really need three if Robert's agrees to the informal practice I outlined above (and I think he always does).

But, again, there's no real correlation between the court voting to grant cert and the court's final decision in the case vis-a-vis agreeing with the arguments.

Oh, ya I agree, was just trying to break down what I think the court is going to end up voting like.

[Polyxo]

I don't see why things like this shouldn't result in criminal civil rights charges for those involved.

[zenkai]

I don't get it, why should race matter? Are you saying people will vote on a party based on their race? Isn't that rather racist to assume how people will vote is based on the color of their skin?

[TZucchini]

I don't get it, why should race matter? Are you saying people will vote on a party based on their race? Isn't that rather racist to assume how people will vote is based on the color of their skin?

I don't think it's racist to say "black people, as a whole, are much more likely to vote Democratic in Presidential elections". Why would that be racist?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I said before but it should also be a holiday.

I second that. But I think the people in power do really worry about what would happen if everyone had the opportunity to vote.

[zenkai]

I don't think it's racist to say "black people, as a whole, are much more likely to vote Democratic in Presidential elections". Why would that be racist?

That's like saying, black people will more likely commit a crime, you're prejudging actions based on race. If nothing is different between us other than the pigment of our skin, what does it matter what % of races vote what.

[TZucchini]

That's like saying, black people will more likely commit a crime, you're prejudging actions based on race.

It's racist to say "black people are predisposed to commit more crime, simply because of their race." It's not racist to look at statistics and make an observation. Do you actually believe otherwise?

If nothing is different between us other than the pigment of our skin, what does it matter what % of races vote what.

You know the answer to this already. It matters because Republicans can attempt to illegally draw lines that lump all people likely to vote Democrat into one district, reducing their representation in government.

[zenkai]

It's racist to say "black people are predisposed to commit more crime, simply because of their race." It's not racist to look at statistics and make an observation. Do you actually believe otherwise?



You know the answer to this already. It matters because Republicans can attempt to illegally draw lines that lump all people likely to vote Democrat into one district, reducing their representation in government.

Regardless of your feelings on race, Republicans and Democrats draw their boundary lines based on how people vote, not based on the color of their skin

[PosPosPos]

Not a surprise to see Republicans do something absolutely slimy and evil.

Pleasantly surprised to see that said evil was thwarted though.

[TZucchini]

Regardless of your feelings on race, Republicans and Democrats draw their boundary lines based on how people vote, not based on the color of their skin

Did you not read the Supreme Court ruling or something? Republicans just got caught drawing their lines based on race.