How can each vote carry equal weight if 60% of the voters get to select 30% of the elected officials?
We look at gerrymandering through the lens of "fairness", and we find it unfair when one group cannot get reasonably proportional representation in the legislature. But we are all members of many groups. We belong to political parties, racial groups, regional groups, economic groups, social classes and personality groups -- how can all of them get a voice which is proportional to their numbers? There's no clear-cut solution.
This is the core problem with most gerrymandering jurisprudence -- it looks at at the problem mostly through a racial lens, and more recently, a partisan one. But the world is more complex than that. Voter's interests are not solely determined by the color of their skin or their political party.
The court is not saying that gerrymandering is okay. The court is saying that they don't have a solution, or at least not one that can be imposed by courts. The court is more constrained than a legislature in finding a solution, because the court must override state laws based on a reasonable reading of federal law, in this case the Voting Rights Act, or the Constitution. And unfortunately, both of those sources are nearly silent on the matter. It is not within the courts power to create law from nothing, notwithstanding Kagan's dissent.
In the past, we decided that the appropriate grouping for the election of representatives was geographic. It's not ideal, but it's the best of bad options. Our current gerrymanders are a perversion of that principle, and we are right to look for a solution that leads to cleaner, more compact districts.
The court has said that it's not theirs to decide the issue. I'm not sure I agree, because current gerrymanders are an incumbent protection racket, and that looks to me like a civil rights violation. But in any case, it is well within the power of Congress to fix the problem through an amendment to the Voting Rights Act, and they certainly should.
Except that the Senate is controlled by Republicans and Republicans, on the whole, benefit more from gerrymandering. Even when the words and intentions of GOP are made clear, "we gerrymandered black peoples' districts to reduce their representation", it's still hard to remove that entrenched power. What's more, because of the pro-rural bias of the Senate, the rural allegiance to the GOP, and the electoral college disadvantaging urban centers, this entrenched GOP will continue to have a disproportionate share of power.
The Democrats try to play clean and fair, meanwhile the deck is stacked against them, and they still naively don't shift back towards gaining rural voters who they need for the Senate. Until the Fox News loving Silent Gen and Boomers die off, the GOP will cling to a disproportionate share of power.
I was involved in a gerrymandering case in the 1990s. The group that brought me in was challenging the Illinois congressional map, which had been drawn by Democrats. It was, and is, atrocious. Back then, the map was a deal between the white Democrats who wanted to hold some white seats that extended into the suburbs, and some black Democrats who wanted incumbent protection.
Back then, the Democrats were the ones across the country who were protecting racial gerrymanders because they wanted to ensure that any area with a substantial black population was never represented by a Republican. They drew the districts in Illinois to ensure as many black-majority districts as possible (and one Hispanic-majority district). The districts were completely convoluted. They made arguments that the Voting Rights Act actually required racial gerrymanders.
Our side challenged the districts. The other side, defending the gerrymander, was led by the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, and they brought in the Clinton Administration Justice Department as defendant-intervenors. That's right -- the primary defender of gerrymanders was the Clinton Administration. They were involved in similar suits, making similar claims, across the country.
Demographics have shifted a bit since then, and now we have more Republican gerrymanders than Democrat ones. But make no mistake -- the original convoluted maps were all Democrat, and virtually all Supreme Court gerrymandering-related precedent during the era came as a result of Democrat defense of the maps.
So don't try to claim that Democrats "play clean and fair". That's rubbish. They created this problem, and only now are shifting their views of gerrymandering because it is no longer working to their benefit. They, like most politicians, are opportunists.
Disclosure: I'm now the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party.
What are your stances on climate change? If you have a sane, science-backed viewpoint, it'd be much easier for me to vote for you, given you're a GOP member. As it stands, 95% of your entire party has abandoned the planet's future, and I can not in good conscience vote for anyone who takes the GOP label and doesn't speak out against denialists and the fossil fuel cabal.
I went to UChicago, FWIW, and there are some decent economics-based policy proposals about climate change from right-wing thinkers. It's a shame your party is so beholden to fossil fuel interests.
One cannot expect those that benefit from X to write laws restricting X. It's why money will never be out of politics. There will never be enough people in Congress to sacrificially agree to such an idea.
Your vote is measured the same way as my vote. Your vote doesn't equal three-fifths of mine.
There is apparently not a Federal regulation on crafting districts such that they overall skew in a given direction. In practice this can and does result in your vote being effectively worthless if you are in a district that is not your particular flavor.
Depending on your philosophies, the judiciary is not tasked with legislation or "correcting wrongs" but with evaluating the current ruleset and determining if things are correct given those rules. So despite that you and I can look and say "well regardless of the letter of the law, the outcome surely isn't right" you have those that view this as not being in their power to change. The law legislates the way in which the vote is counted, not in the district-creation process.
One would assume this is how his head remains intact.
I think political parties are a non-entity as far as the US constitution (small 'c') is concerned, aren't they? So the court doesn't have any opinion on them and there are no requirements.
1. It would be harder to create such an independent commission in the US, because Americans (and especially Republicans) have worked tirelessly to make every corner of their lives another opportunity for partisanship. Americans elect _far_ too many officials, and those elections almost invariably end up partisan because a party has the muscle to win you the election. For example, in the US all those Supreme Court justices who wrote this decision and its dissents are in effect partisan, even though in principle it's not supposed to be a partisan body. In the UK the Supreme Court is just a bunch of judges that other judges and lawyers thought should be elevated, not a partisan issue.
2. Because Parliament is sovereign the Parliament has to actually enact those boundaries after the commission proposes them. Historically there is always a political party that thinks these changes are a bad idea conveniently for them because it somehow always seems to be the party that will likely lose seats. Because the Commission itself is impartial which party is angry about this varies, but in recent history it's Labour. When proposals to actually apply the current recommendations are coming up, I can always expect about one Facebook post a week from somebody who had no idea how boundaries work, or that there's an independent commission in charge of this, who has been convinced "somehow" that the party they don't like has conspired to take seats away from the one they do like via these boundary changes. Big surprise.
3. To be fair we got here because historically UK boundaries were left unchanged for so long that we had the Rotten Boroughs, a situation where some random land owner might own an area which was entitled to be represented by an MP even though literally _nobody_ had lived there for decades. You will not be surprised to learn that this caused _horrendous_ levels of corruption, bad enough that the act of parliament to fix it was routinely called the Great Reform Act (legally "Representation of the People Act 1832") and had to be rammed through by the same sort of extreme measures we've seen Democrats talking about in the US to fix its democracy.
Some countries, like the UK, have a constitution but no Constitution.