Supreme Couirt lets stand Pennsylvania Gerrymandering decision

[The Barbarian]

In a devastating blow to Pennsylvania republicans, the Supreme Court let stand a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that partisan Gerrymandering is in violation of the state Constitution. Even worse for the republicans, they stubbornly refused to produce a legal redistricting map, so the court had an impartial agency produce a politically-neutral map.

Last few elections, the House of Representatives would have been dominated by democrats, if districts were neutrally-drawn.

Wisconsin is next:

The Wisconsin voters who brought the case challenged the plan under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and, in late 2016, won at trial — the first time in over three decades that a map has been struck down as a partisan gerrymander. The lower court ruled that the plan was “an aggressive partisan gerrymander” that locked in a Republican majority in the state assembly under “any likely electoral scenario.”

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case (it would be argued this fall), it will be the first time the high court has considered the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering in more than a decade. The case could have major implications for redistricting because, thus far, the Supreme Court has not been able to agree on a standard for deciding when a map goes too far. The Wisconsin case could at last give it that opportunity.

Gerrymandering comes in many varieties, but the kind of gerrymandering that took place this decade in Wisconsin (and a handful of other states) is among the worst. This kind of aggressive gerrymandering doesn’t just pre-determine electoral results, but also locks in a disproportionate and unfair advantage for one party over the other — making maps unresponsive to voters in individual districts and deeply unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole.
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/5-things-know-about-wisconsin-partisan-gerrymandering-case

The plaintiffs have already won in Wisconsin. Republicans have appealed to the US Supreme Court, but their decision in the case of Pennsylvania suggests that the justices aren't inclined to protect redistricting that acts against the will of the voters.

 

[patrick jane]

In another devastating year for the dismal dems, they're on course to lose more seats in November. Nothing burgers are the only thing they've eaten in 2 years or more and the hunger is never satidfied. At this point, even IF DJT is impeached it will never heal the wounds they suffered in that unprecedented election Victory. The most exciting night of my life.

 

[The Barbarian]

In another devastating year for the dismal dems, they're on course to lose more seats in November.

The process is already started. Democrats have been making inroads on the republicans, turning what should have been safe republican districts into competitive races. In many cases, they've flipped the seats.

Now, Pennsylvania has overturned the Gerrymandering that gave republicans control of the state. Wisconsin has also ended Gerrymandering, although the US Supreme court hasn't ruled on the appeal by republicans, frantic to avoid losing another state.

But since they allowed Pennsylvania to assure that the will of the voters would not be corrupted by political redistricting, I'm thinking that the republicans will lose again.

It's trend, one that will be devastating to republicans, unless they return to American values. There's a good side to this for you; Gerrymandering produces save republican seats, but it also produces safe democrat seats. Wherever it happens, you also get more extreme democrats.

Likely, the end of Gerrymandering will result in less extremism on all sides, and that will be a good thing for America.

At this point, even IF DJT is impeached it will never heal the wounds they suffered in that unprecedented election Victory. The most exciting night of my life.

Well, so far, Nixon was actually worse than Trump, so even that satisfaction for you, is tainted.

 

[patrick jane]

I'm thinking


Well, so far, Nixon was tainted.

I see. I disagree with the first two words though.

 

[The Barbarian]

The real disappointment for Trump and his ilk is the realization that the republican's most effective means of election rigging is in danger.

There's no question now; representation in Pennsylvania will now reflect the will of the voters of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court of the United States just rejected the last appeal by the republicans. And it seems that the decision of the courts in Wisconsin, rejecting Gerrymandering, will be likewise upheld by the Supreme Court.

Justice Ginsberg deftly cut the ground out from under Gorsich, when he tried to argue against equal representation being imposed by the court when states refuse to do it.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is bent with age, can sometimes look disengaged or even sleepy during arguments, and she had that droopy look today as well. But, in this moment, she heard Gorsuch very clearly, and she didn’t even raise her head before offering a brisk and convincing dismissal. In her still Brooklyn-flecked drawl, she grumbled, “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” There might have been an audible woo that echoed through the courtroom. (Ginsburg’s comment seemed to silence Gorsuch for the rest of the arguments.)

In one cutting remark, Ginsburg summed up how Gorsuch’s patronizing lecture omitted some of the Court’s most important precedents, and Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases, from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch

The rest is history.