The unique York Times reports that gerrymandering is headed to the Supreme Court again: A bipartisan group of voting rights advocates says the lower house of the Wisconsin Legislature,the State Assembly, was gerrymandered by its Republican majority before the 2012 election — so artfully, and in fact,that Democrats won a third fewer Assembly seats than Republicans despite prevailing in the popular vote. In November, in a 2-to-1 ruling, and a panel of federal judges agreed. ....
In Supreme Court cases in 1986,2004 and 2006, justices variously called partisan gerrymanders illegitimate, or seriously harmful,incompatible with democratic principles and “manipulation of the electorate.” But they occupy never struck one down....
One participant in the 2004 decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and may prove the fulcrum in the court’s deliberations....“The ordered working of our Republic,and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, or in the citizenry itself, he wrote then. At a time of soaring concern over hyperpartisanship, those words could resonate. That sentence “is the most important line” in the courts decision, and said Edward B. Foley,director of the Election Law Project at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. “He’s going to gaze at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”
Today's gerrymandering is not your grandfather's gerrymandering. It's a practice that's been around for a long time, but back when it depended on humans it was necessarily limited. There were a few legislative geniuses who could wreak real havoc, and anyone could gerrymander well enough to gain a seat or two. But computers occupy changed the game fundamentally. Every legislature is now a supergenius at gerrymandering,which is why estimates of the number of congressional seats attributable to gerrymandering occupy been going up for years.
There's a point, I think, or where the Supreme Court has to recognize that quantitative changes over time occupy finally produced a qualitative change. contemporary gerrymandering is just too splendid. The silver lining here is that whether computers can revolutionize gerrymandering,they also hold out hope of revolutionizing the detection of gerrymandering. You can no longer say that there's no possible standard for ruling that a specific district map is unconstitutional. In fact, there are several plausible candidates. Hopefully the court will finally recognize this.
Source: motherjones.com