), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2912403.

by Ed Mosca / 10 August 2019 10 August 2019.

The Supreme Court has the same power to strike down partisan gerrymandering today. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to outlaw gerrymandering and has three big cases on its docket this year from Wisconsin, Maryland and Texas. This is the magic of gerrymandering: We now have a majority of beans in anywhere from 2/3 to 5/6 of jars/districts are white, despite an even number of white and black beans. 4.Myth: Because people “sort” themselves into communities with people of similar political beliefs, redistricting is always going to separate people into partisan, non-competitive districts. Five myths about gerrymandering March 11, 2018 2:19 am. States would not be able to make too much use of either race or politics when drawing districts.

Of course, some of those beans can swing. At the Wisconsin argument, Justice Stephen Breyer laid out a workable standard for the court: Were the maps drawn by one party? [11] Other states have attempted to excuse the use of racial quotas or the packing of African-American voters by claiming they were actually engaging in partisan gerrymandering. aliberaldoseofskepticism. But, since there are more white beans than black beans in the remainder, those five jars should skew toward white. . [3] But because the Supreme Court has never set a standard for determining when partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, states typically defend against racial gerrymandering claims by arguing that they actually redistricted for the purpose of disadvantaging the minority party. The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning. Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.) So, what has changed? Not at all my sheer hatred for prominent Democrats who campaign for Republicans, or their supporters who have the gall to accuse their detractors of being closet Trump supporters. On Friday September 18, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a women's rights icon, died at 87. Elbridge Gerry
During oral arguments over Wisconsin’s legislative map in October, Justice Neil Gorsuch made a similar point: “Where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines?”. . 1.Myth: Excessive partisanship is an inevitable part of drawing districts. Computers allow map-drawers to create districts with pinpoint precision so as to benefit one party, all while maintaining population equality. 1: Partisan gerrymandering is a long-accepted part of U.S. politics. This is a random distribution, so they should all be around 1,000 white beans, 1,000 black beans, give or take a few hundred either way. Myth No. What I mean is, gerrymandering doesn’t make those seats “safe”. 7.Myth: We can set up computers to draw compact districts and avoid all of the problems with gerrymandering. Share on Facebook; Share on …

In den Vereinigten Staaten sind dagegen für Kongresswahlbezirke häufig Legislative oder Exekutive der Bundesstaaten und damit Organe, die parteipolitische Ziele verfolg… It is to gain partisan advantage.” Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, said, “Part of my intent was to create a map that, all things being legal and equal, would, nonetheless, be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less.” (Republicans had full control of the redistricting process in 21 states vs. eight states for Democrats after the 2010 elections Five myths about gerrymandering No, GOP dominance isn’t just about ‘geography.’ “He who controls redistricting can control Congress,” Karl Rove, President George W. … Instead, it was the result of one of the worst partisan gerrymanders of the 2010 redistricting cycle. “Districting is ‘inherently political’ and ‘there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent’ consideration of political factors,” the leaders of Pennsylvania’s legislature wrote in January. Simon Jackman of the University of Sydney analyzed 786 different state legislative plans between 1972 and 2014 and found that five of the 10 worst Republican gerrymanders had been passed since 2010.

That gave certain voters a much bigger say than others in deciding who was elected. But it does not have to be this way. If appealed again, the Supreme Court can then decide whether or not to grant certiorari and hear the case. [5] Population shifts caused Pennsylvania to lose a congressional seat in the 2010 redistricting cycle.

Studies have found that both independent commissions and courts draw districts that are more compact and more competitive than those drawn by legislatures. This page summarizes the concerns that have been raised during the course of the debate on the National Popular Vote bill, and shows how they are myths. Democrats have often taken to complaining about how structural deficiencies in American legislative institutions cheat them out of what’s rightly theirs. Draw the Lines PA is dedicated to demystifying gerrymandering, debunking the myths that have grown up around it, and sharing the best ideas for reform that have emerged all around our republic. Reality: Self-sorting does have some effect on the districts that states can draw. Yet there are many misperceptions about how the process works.

The court has only three choices: (1) summarily affirm or reverse the case (agreeing or disagreeing with the three-judge court’s judgment, but not necessarily based on that court’s reasoning); (2) dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction; or (3) note probable jurisdiction, order full briefing, hear oral arguments on the merits, and issue an opinion. You can check out previous myths, read more from Outlook or follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter. Moreover, as Prof. Nick Stephanopoulos has pointed out, “redistricting litigation is already very common.” Since the last redistricting took place in 2011, some 224 lawsuits have been filed challenging congressional or state legislative maps in 42 states. I don’t mean gerrymandering itself is a myth. One side (Repub) has done more gerrymandering RECENTLY but Dems have done their share in the past, and want to do it again in the future. But the human element will always play a significant role in redistricting. Insbesondere in den Vereinigten Staaten ist diese Praxis bis heute verbreitet. In vielen Demokratien weltweit wurde der Neuzuschnitt von Wahlkreisen zur Vermeidung von Verzerrungen unabhängigen Kommissionen übertragen, die beispielsweise von Verfassungsrichtern besetzt sind, etwa die Delimitation Commission of India. Computers are valuable tools for map-drawers—they can even help assess whether plans are likely partisan gerrymanders. Practically every history of gerrymandering includes a reference to Massachusetts Gov. Gerrymandering — in which politicians manipulate electoral boundaries for partisan advantage — is emerging as a key issue in the midterm elections. Gerry himself called the map he signed “highly disagreeable,” and the Salem Gazette, which coined the term “gerrymander,” wrote that “this Law inflicted a grievous wound on the Constitution.”.

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member. Obviously gerrymandering is a fact. But the manageable standard the Whitford court approved would help stop legislators from drawing districts in order to achieve systematic advantage over their political opponents. Rev.

But in 2012, Democrats won only five of 18 districts (28%).

[10] Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 154 (1993). Reality: If only it were that simple. [3] Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995). Moreover, today’s gerrymandering — because of sophisticated technology, increased political polarization and the clustering of partisans in like-minded areas — makes the map signed by Gerry look quaint, according to a study by Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California. [5] Such a large shift in such a short amount of time could not have resulted from self-sorting – and it didn’t. Reality: Providing clear standards for partisan gerrymandering suits is unlikely to add much to the current level of gerrymandering litigation, and may even reduce litigation over the long term. The authors make a provocative argument about the signal sent by the Supreme Court’s Vieth v. ... Debunking the Myths. “The United States Constitution expressly delegates districting authority to state legislatures,” wrote legislative leaders. Some states have also used outlandish interpretations of the VRA to pack far more minority voters into districts than necessary, in order to achieve partisan goals.
The Gerrymander Myth By Dan McLaughlin. 1 Indeed, Pennsylvania Republicans went to almost comic lengths to contort political boundaries for partisan advantage, drawing one district, nicknamed “Goofy Kicking Donald Duck,” that spanned five counties and 26 municipalities, and at one of its narrowest points ran through the parking lot of a seafood restaurant in the town of King of Prussia. We must have accurate and complete results. . of Elections, 141 F. Supp. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had the answer: “Where did one-person/one-vote come from?” The courts that interpret the Constitution have long overseen the process of drawing district maps.

CLC’s case, Whitford v.Gill, is on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we hope that we can once and for all curb the practice of partisan gerrymandering.Before then, we’d like to debunk a number of myths about partisan gerrymandering with a dose of reality. One-person, one-vote has been the law of the land for half a century, and partisan gerrymandering is as virulent as ever.

1 Partisan gerrymandering is a long-accepted part of U.S. politics: Gerrymandering has been denounced as long as it’s been practiced. This did have a partisan effect, and one-person, one-vote prevented the practice to some degree.