https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-set-lose-multiple-seats-due-supreme-court-ruling-1805744
NAACP president Derrick Johnson welcomed the Supreme Court's decision as a "triumph for our democracy."
After Alabama was ordered to redraw their Congressional maps, Republicans are facing potential loss of some seats in the House.
How does that actually work in practice? Its a good model to strive for, but impossible to do in reality.
Schwarzenegger is working state-by-state to end gerrymandering.
Agreed. But before that can happen blue states need to continue gerrymandering as hard as possible to counterbalance red states.
And unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act doesn't fix that completely, but it's better than nothing.
“Although the majority's decision is disappointing, this case is not over."
Is it just me, or does that sound rather menacing?
The highest court in the country finds the districting lines were intentionally racist and need to be redrawn, and the response is “the fight is not over?”
Looks like 5 seats could end up becoming Democratic, which would mean an even split of 217 seats each.
This would only be at the next election right? So it would just make the split more "fair" for what the population in general wants. But the House does tend to go for the winning candidate's Party during a Presidential election year I think.
Another issue is timing. State(s) could drag their feet in redistricting and if it gets too close to the election say they don't have time to complete the courts request. I hope there's timeliness enforced.
Also, yes usually the house goes to the winning candidate for the first two years than swaps.
Yup. That's the way the Ohio 'non-gerrymandering' law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal... 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)
Yup. That's the way the Ohio 'non-gerrymandering' law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal... 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)
Honestly I'm surprised the SCOTUS ruled this way. With how clearly activist they've been for christian nationalist interests, I kinda expected them to just nuke anything that might hurt the GOP
Some of SCOTUS was appointed because of their pre-existing views on GOP hot topics. What the GOP is slowly discovering is that this doesn’t always translate to favoring the GOP on everything. Most of SCOTUS still tries to operate within the legal framework, barring the creative interpretations they hold on the topics that got them appointed in the first place.
I wish I believed in SCOTUS as much as you. IMHO many of their recent decisions, from roe to the dismantling of the clean water act, etc have shown just how little they care. Not just about precedent, but about the country, it's people, it's land, and resources. Except as they can be exploited for profit.
I think Roberts particularly has become concerned about the backlash against recent decisions, particularly striking down Roe. He really does seem to care about the perception of a partisan supreme court. Kavanaygh I don't know .. that's kind of a weird one.
Sadly Im pretty sure Roberts is a minority on SCOTUS, at least amongst the right leaning majority.
Good, gerrymandering has been a problem for years. I remember talking about it in my GIS classes during college. Unfortunately its very with modern GIS software. GIS and Gerrymandering.. Glad to see the supreme court starting to take some action on it.
I read a comment somewhere where someone theorized that maybe they ruled this way to try to quell dissent ahead of a possible decision we won't like. I think maybe it was the Harper case? Not 100% sure.
I heard Krystal Ball say it might be a move to somewhat reestablish the trust in the SC after the RvW decision demolished it. I guess both of these ideas make some sense.
It should concern everyone that any judicial decision was based on politics. This is true of whether you like the decision or not. The elected representatives reflect the will of the people, not the judiciary (in my biased Canadian view, anyway).