Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MadLinguist

(790 posts)
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 12:17 AM Feb 2017

Three years til the next census, and a gerrymandering case may be headed for SC

I don't know how to work on getting interest in federal legislation on redistricting practices, but this is not an issue we can afford to ignore.
There are people working on it, but unless there is some serious intervention before the next census (2020), there's little likelihood of change. There are ways to measure how severe a gerrymander is which is the basis for a Wisconsin suit.
From an article by the Campaign League Center:

With partisan gerrymandering on the rise nationwide, it’s more important than ever that the U.S. Supreme Court adopt a standard to help address this unconstitutional practice that has gone unaddressed for too long. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it has the authority and responsibility to decide partisan gerrymandering claims, and in 2006, a majority of the Court agreed that excessive partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has yet to adopt a standard for determining when a redistricting plan is so extreme that it constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
CLC has offered such a standard in the case Whitford v. Gill, which we successfully argued, along with co-counsel, before a three-judge panel in a Wisconsin federal court. Our case showed that the Wisconsin state assembly plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, using a three-part test that incorporates the efficiency gap and other political science metrics of partisan advantage. The three-part test requires that a plaintiff prove that:
(1) the state had an intent to advantage one party over another;
(2) the state did in fact advantage one party over another (this can be shown with the efficiency gap and other metrics);
(3) that there was no neutral justification for the large advantage that the state gave to one political party.
If appealed, the Whitford v. Gill decision would be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, likely in 2017, and the Supreme Court would have the opportunity to adopt a standard for determining unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders that can be used nationwide.


The article has some cool visualization that makes it pretty clear what the gerrymandering trend is....
https://redistrictingonlinelawblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/post-2016-election-analysis-on-partisan-gerrymandering-impact.pdf
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Three years til the next ...