—
Not sure to categorize this latest SCOTUS Decision as an Activist Decision, a Constructionist Decision, or a “kickback payment” to the GOP, for such nice the court stacking?
If the Federal Courts aren’t the right place to settle these lopsided-district boundary disputes — then where the hell IS the right place?
by Mark Sherman / AP, Time.com — June 27, 2019
The Supreme Court says federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.
[...]
Chief Justice John Roberts said for the majority that the districting plans “are highly partisan by any measure.” But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.
[...]
The decision effectively reverses the outcome of rulings in Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio, where courts had ordered new maps drawn and ends proceedings in Wisconsin, where a retrial was supposed to take place this summer after the Supreme Court last year threw out a decision on procedural grounds.
Proponents of limiting partisan gerrymandering still have several routes open to them, including challenges in state courts. There is a pending North Carolina lawsuit
[...]
OK, there one route for recourse: Challenge the Gerrymander in State Court only.
Here are a few more strategies to pursue, to help make our democracy fair again — one person, one vote. In districts that looks like the neighborhoods they represent.
by Malaika Jabali, ColorLines — Jun 28, 2019
In a decision that liberal-leaning justice Elena Kagan called “tragically wrong,” the Supreme Court ruled Thursday (June 27) that federal courts could not hear cases of partisan gerrymandering. Now when a political party draws district lines to give itself an advantage—no matter how geographically specious they are—courts at the federal level can no longer strike them down. In an opinion decided 5-4 by a conservative majority, Chief Justice Roberts held that gerrymandering issues are “political” questions that should be left entirely to states. In essence, the Supreme Court didn’t just shut the door on hearing future partisan gerrymandering claims, but they “bolted it shut and walked away,” says Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice Democracy Program.
Despite the decision’s far-reaching outcomes at the federal judicial level, there are multiple state avenues to fight back. [...]
The Brennan Center’s Li also stresses that while a SCOTUS decision that maintained federal court jurisdiction in gerrymandering cases was something advocates were hoping for, they’re “not in a worse place,” since the Court had never taken up partisan gerrymandering claims.
Li points to Arkansas, California and Michigan using ballot initiatives to prohibit gerrymandering. He also recommends supporting gubernatorial candidates where, in many cases, a governor may veto egregiously gerrymandered redistricting maps.
On top of that, Li says, everyday people can more easily follow and participate in the redistricting process in 2021 when the maps are next redrawn. “There will be more public mapping tools that are available for people to draw their own maps or to evaluate the maps.”
“A lot more people are watching,” Li continues. “Before, these shenanigans occurred in the dark because people didn’t care to look. But now people have moved the flower pot and are looking underneath to see what’s there.”
[...]
Another route for recourse: Use Ballot initiatives to prohibit/limit Gerrymandering in your state.
Another recourse for making your vote count: Vote in Governors who with Veto unfair redistricting.
And finally, recourse number 4 that the Supreme Court has not struck down: Get Involved. Follow the Gerrymandering process occurring in your state (circa 2021).
No longer let the majority chamber in your state, redraw your Voting District, without giving them your thoughts on the matter.
Representatives’ Districts really should reflect “the communities” they (supposedly) represent.
— — —
...
Elections have Consequences. Especially in Census years, with a conservative Supreme Court.
—