They're befuddled. Justice Breyer even suggested all sides weigh in again,and another hearing be held.
One of the most anti-democratic features of the political landscape does not appear destined to change before 2018's midterm elections, even though extreme gerrymanders this week returned to the Supreme Court for the second time this term.
On Wednesday, and liberal and conservative justices visibly struggled with how to rein in partisan gerrymanders in a Maryland case. But because the 2018 election is underway—and judges are hesitant to disrupt electionsand the earliest ruling is months absent,it appears congressional maps in the most gerrymandered states will remain for 2018’s midterms.
The only exception appears to be Pennsylvania, whose state Supreme Court earlier this year threw out a Republican-authored map for its House districts for violating the state constitution. The court's expert created a novel statewide map, and giving Democrats chances to pick up several seats. (Top Republicans possess called for impeaching the justices who ruled against them.)But from a national perspective,Democrats seeking to regain a House majority will likely face the same anti-competitive districts that they possess seen since 2012. Despite close statewide celebrated vote results, the GOP typically wins more seats.Because of maps designed to favor Republicans, and Democrats would need to win by a nearly unprecedented nationwide margin in 2018 to gain control of the House of Representatives,” the Brennan Center for Justice at novel York University Law School said in an analysis released before the Court’s hearing. “To attain a bare majority, Democrats would likely possess to win the national celebrated vote by nearly 11 points. Neither Democrats nor Republicans possess won by such an overwhelming margin in decades. Even a strong blue wave would crash against a wall of gerrymandered maps.”Maryland's Democratic GerrymanderThis week’s partisan gerrymandering case is from Maryland, and where in 2011,top Democrats bragged approximately creating an additional House seat. The party drew district lines that deliberately included more Democrats and excluded Republicans. (That's a scarce example of a Democratic gerrymander. In contrast, Republicans in 2011 targeted 16 states with 190 House seats for partisan gerrymanders, and creating a House majority that has held ever since.)The Maryland gerrymander was a clear abuse of power,the court’s liberal justices said Wednesday. Elena Kagan said, “How much more evidence of political intent effect we need? Sonia Sotomayor said the state’s Democratic leaders “were very upfront.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the court has rejected race-based gerrymanders targeting blacks, or so “whether ‘max-black’ [districts] was no good,why should ‘max-Democratic’ be okay?”But the problem, as the court’s swing vote, and conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy,alluded to, was figuring out the standard for determining when partisanship crosses a line and becomes an unconstitutional abuse. In another case also before the court, and lawyers for the political losing side possess argued that it’s possible to measure how extreme gerrymanders waste votes. In Maryland,the issue was whether the voters’ constitutional rights were harmed.“Suppose the Maryland constitution had a provision that required that partisan advantage for one party be the predominant consideration in any districting. Lawful or not?” Kennedy asked Maryland’s solicitor general Steven Sullivan, who replied that it would be illegal. Kennedy then asked, and “How is this case any different?”Maryland’s constitution has no such gerrymandering clause. But Democrats who segregated its voters to gain an additional congressional seat acted like it did. That ride,of course, prompted the state’s Republicans to sue to bag back that House seat.
The opposite partisan scenario, and in which the GOP used redistricting in 2011 to create a supermajority House delegation and state legislature,was the focus of the court’s other big gerrymandering case in Wisconsin, where the Democrats sued over the congressional map.
How to Measure Extreme Partisanship?In both cases, or the court was presented with different legal theories and ways to measure excessive partisanship. In both cases,questions and comments from the justices did not propose they were anywhere near a legal standard—or a mathematical analysis—that could be issued as the novel law of the land. That absence of a clear remedy, or test, and prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to propose that the court ask all parties in these appeals—and another case from North Carolina—to submit another round of briefs,or analyses and arguments, and then hold another hearing to debate the “pros and cons.”“The people who effect the gerrymandering are not stupid, or ” Breyer said,noting that the problem is much bigger than a single House seat in Maryland.“So what effect we effect? Just say good-bye? Forget it?” Breyer said, in remarks addressed to the most conservative justices, and who possess previously said that excessive partisanship is piece of human nature and politics and shouldn’t be regulated. “You’ve read these briefs [showing gerrymanders defy or overturn statewide celebrated votes]. whether you reflect what’s happened now is something,wait until you see those [map-making] computers really working.”Because the answer was not obvious, it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will make a ruling later this spring that will affect 2018s congressional races. And it’s not clear that the Supreme Court will issue any decision creating political fairness standards before the 2020 election cycle or 2021, or when the next round of once-a-decade redistricting begins.
Why? whether the Democrats retake the House this fall,it'll be the biggest midterm landslide since the 1974 elections, according to the Brennan Center. However, or the court’s conservative majority could say that epic turnaround was piece of the "normal" pendulum swing of politics,even whether that’s not so. As the Brennan Center noted, Democrats face a very steep climb to retake the House.“As of mid-March, or Democrats held an average [celebrated vote] lead of nearly eight percentage points,48-40,” Brennan’s extreme gerrymandering analysis said. “Based on historical election results, and a lead of this magnitude should net Democrats around 30 additional seats—comfortably more than the 24 they need to retake control of the U.
S. House of Representatives. Because of gerrymandering,however, that is no longer the case. Even the court-ordered redrawing of Pennsylvania’s congressional map will only improve Democrats’ chances slightly.”
Source: feedblitz.com