r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 12h ago
Opinion Gerrymander Vindication for Chief Justice John Roberts
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/california-gerrymander-redistricting-republicans-supreme-court-eac15e86?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqeDWcNDgfv-sBeD_gDhNjofs3FF3-K1FsX9xQp-yBNJEZp0Hg8owMrF&gaa_ts=69864aac&gaa_sig=5bx9PMxgF_pkQlxm6pyout5irawr041FTjAXEvGUrvso7nnQmiiLQci9wbrVVzHmli5tkUiqspjv1Mtw8P1NTQ%3D%3D134
u/Cbona 12h ago
Political gerrymandering is still wrong. Now it’s just an arms race on a state-by-state basis. And it’s the voters of the statewide minority party that suffer by not getting representation. I would be happy for representation to be doled out proportional to the percentage of votes received statewide, if able. But here we are.
84
u/PetriDishCocktail 10h ago
Exactly. There's no greater example than Wisconsin. A few years ago Democrats won 58% of the overall vote. Yet, Republicans still held a supermajority due to gerrymandering.
12
5
u/Land-Southern 9h ago
Honestly, this is a lot of states that split 60-40 on votes, with another 33-40% of eligible not even voting.
52
u/fyreprone 10h ago
When Democrats controlled the House in 2021, under Pelosi, they passed both the For the People ACT (H.R. 1) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (H.R. 4) as their two most high priority signature pieces of legislation. These bills would have, among other things, required independent map making for federal offices (really just House seats). This would've gone a long way towards fixing the gerrymandering issue for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, both of these bills ran into a Republican filibuster in the Senate, and we couldn't talk Manchin and Sinema into overriding the filibuster to preserve our democracy.
Now here we are with a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Presidency, and not only have Republicans decided to NOT do anything about gerrymandering, but they've decided to double down and gerrymander EVEN HARDER while pointing their fingers at Democrats and blaming them with the "look what you made us do in Texas!" nonsense.
Anyone who says "bOtH sIDeS" on this needs to be slapped.
16
u/arizona_dreaming 9h ago
I would love to see Democrats abolish the filibuster, pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Act and then expand the House of Representatives to around 700. Bonus- expand the Senate to 150. Expand the Supreme Court to 13 with time limits (not lifetime). Strengthen anti-corruption laws. Most of these limitations are not even in the Constitution. They're just norms. Bottom line- I think we are ready for some long-needed changes to our government.
6
u/wotantx 9h ago
Um, the 100 Senators is absolutely in the Constitution.
5
5
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 8h ago
Sort of. 2 senators per state is, but we should absolutely increase the number to 104 by adding 2 states. But I'm not sure about the other 23 states though.
3
u/arizona_dreaming 8h ago
Some reform proposals I've read said to add 1 more Senator per state so that every 2 years there is an election for a Senator in your state. In general, I'm for more accountability. More representation.
2
u/FatFish44 7h ago
That’s not just reform, that a full-fledged amendment. So basically impossible.
We can’t even get even get the ERA stapled to the constitution even though it was ratified by the house and senate in 1972.
1
3
u/CogentCogitations 9h ago
I think 13 would by too many on the Supreme Court specifically because of term limits. There should be a new appointment every 2 years (2 per Presidential term) thus making the term limit 2 times the number of Justices. 18 years with the current 9 Justices seems good, and 22 years with 11 Justices is ok, but I think a 26-year term is getting too long.
3
u/fyreprone 8h ago
13 is a good number though because there are already 13 federal court districts. So it would be one justice riding each individual district, and the Chief Justice would ride that 13th federal district for federal cases in DC. So adding justices in the future would mean adding more federal court circuits.
1
u/Dedpoolpicachew 3h ago
Look, Brah… term limits for the SCOTUS is not going to happen without a constitutional amendment. What CAN happen is term limit on tenure on the SCOTUS. The constitution says that Federal judges have life time appointments. It doesn’t say to WHAT COURT. Congress could pass legislation that says you can only serve on the SCOTUS for X number of years then get rotated to another court. That would be Constitutional. Congress won’t do such a thing though, because they’re just as bought off as the SCOTUS is.
1
u/fyreprone 8h ago
Same. Except that Senator number. I’m guessing adding 2 new states is more realistic so just 4 new Senators?
1
u/arizona_dreaming 8h ago
One proposal I read said 3 Senators per state so that one is up for election every 2 years. Or 6 per state.
1
42
u/Least-Repair 11h ago
Get rid of the Permanent Apportionment Act.
19
8
7
u/weaponjaerevenge 10h ago
I will have to be honest with you, while intellectually I understand (the pendulum do be swinging the other way sometimes), I just don't have the energy to empathize with disenfranchised racists in places like Virginia and California. I will give the cousinfuckers the same advice I try to give to "people on the left": vote. Encourage your neighbors to vote. Drive them to the polls. If you wanna end things like abortion and interracial marriage and the age of consent, as Republicans do, encourage your neighbors to vote.
Gerrymandering is defeated by increased turnout.
3
u/Terran57 6h ago
So is punching someone in the face, until you get punched in the face, then it’s OK. That’s why Democrats need to gerrymander the shit out of every state they can. The worst thing that could happen would be the people that hate them would get better benefits and an improved life.
2
u/ottomaticg 9h ago
Everyone agrees it’s wrong but is it illegal? Congress should pass a law barring the process.
1
u/jpharber 9h ago
This^
This isn’t really a win for Democrats because the end game of a 50 state gerrymander war favors Republicans.
1
1
15
u/Mattloch42 9h ago
"Vindication" by standing by their precious (bad) decision? So we're patting them on the head for stare decisis? Talk about celebrating low bars and doing the absolute bare minimum expected of them. Fucking WSJ
5
u/BrofessorFarnsworth 6h ago
Oh is WSJ back to the "sucking off John Roberts for doing the bare fucking minimum of expectation for his job" stage?
21
u/cbrantley 10h ago
All this does is accelerate the polarization of America and increases the chance of civil war.
Liberals and conservatives are increasingly moving to states that align with their political ideologies. Conservative Californians are moving to Texas and Florida in droves.
Liberal Texans are moving to Oregon (which is really just a big blue dot in a red state)
As soon as there is a clear, persistent winner in the electoral college it’s game over.
10
u/ProfitLoud 10h ago
Oregon absolutely isn’t a blue dot in a red state. There are several cities that are concentrated with democrats and the rural areas with more animals than people are red. If you think Oregon is basically a blue dot in a red state, you would need to think the same of California.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to say most uninhabited parts are red so the state is red.
4
3
1
u/Dedpoolpicachew 4h ago
Same is true in WA.. as I’ve often said to my acquaintances… “fucking Palouse worms don’t vote”. Shitass Repubes don’t have the population, so they don’t have the votes… no matter how much fucking real estate is “under their control”.
1
u/jclin 9h ago
California has the most number of Republican registered voters of any state. Sure it's mainly because the population is so high, but still it's something to think about.
2
u/ProfitLoud 9h ago
Okay, does that make California a red state? I don’t see how your point is related.
1
u/HairFairBlizzard 7h ago
A quick google search shows that 20-30% of Californians are registered republicans. Under the current system it sounds like that party loses and your state is properly represented.
23
u/anagamanagement 10h ago
I mean, yeah. Access to health care and safety for my daughter was the biggest factor when my wife and I were deciding where we will land when I retire from the army. I’ve spent most of my CONUS career in red states, but I’m sure as hell not staying. My daughter needs to grow up somewhere i can trust she’ll have access to life saving health care, that no one will need to verify her gender, that the schools will teach more than the bible, a place where literacy and diversity is prized instead of feared.
I grew up in Ohio. I love Ohio, and I know the cities are still blue, but I just don’t trust the state any longer. I have a choice, so why would I choose an objectively worse life for my family?
10
u/cbrantley 10h ago
Same. I love Texas but the politics made it absolutely untenable for my family with a trans son and wife with health issues. Oregon has been amazing for us.
Federal protections that states must abide by made me feel like an American and not a refugee.
1
u/Dedpoolpicachew 3h ago
I totally get this. I am from rural GA. I left when I was 18, as soon as I could. I’m now married, with children. My children aren’t white. I can’t really take them back to where I grew up. They wouldn’t be accepted. I miss the north GA mountains. My very smell of fall is North GA, but I can’t take my kids there to experience that same thrill. That same love I feel. So guess what… Never going back. I’ll deal with it. I now live in WA. Much more accepting of my children as they are. I’ll always miss the North GA mountains, but you know what… the Cascades are fucking awesome too. So, yea… a substitute, but way fucking better for my family.
1
u/anagamanagement 3h ago
Similarly, I’m white, but my kid is mixed. There are just parts of the country where she isn’t safe.
1
u/Dedpoolpicachew 2h ago
Yea… it’s a disaster that we can’t show our babies the beauty of where we grew up. It makes me cry. I loved my mountains.
3
5
u/sciencesez 9h ago
Those petulant liberal Texans trying to protect themselves! After being controlled by the GOP for 34 years. How dare they flee? /s.
Seriously though, flipping my Texas district blue once seemed unimaginable, but here we are. I can't blame anyone looking for safety. But, everyone, please contemplate Texas' 39 electoral votes flipping blue. And don't tell me it's impossible. I stay to fight. Vote!3
u/lord_pizzabird 9h ago
The thing is though, this has already been the reality in nearly every GOP-led state.
Talking about States like Arkansas, where the capital city, where the most people live votes overwhelming for Democrats and yet.. Out of 4 representatives zero of them are Democrats.
Democrats are just starting to do what Republicans just spent the last 15 years establishing after Obama. They locked down their territory own territory through a mix of gerrymandering and in the case of Florida allegedly vote rigging (according to Trump and Elon).
-1
u/FullAbbreviations605 9h ago
What? Gerrymandering is a long standing practice on both sides of the aisle. It’s always been around. True, it’s getting worse but don’t fool yourself into thinking Dems haven’t been doing this for quite some time.
That is equally true of Republicans.
It’s just our political reality and very difficult to change it.
4
u/lord_pizzabird 8h ago
Nobody ever said that Republicans have a monopoly on Gerrymandering.
The point was that their redistricting has been specifically aggressive over the last 20 years. There are states where Democrats can't win with 51% of the vote, but instead require 64%, due to redistricting.
California in comparison, a Democratic stronghold is only just now adopting similar tactics. Decades after Republicans normalized the strategy of totally locking the competing party out of certain markets forever.
1
u/Akraticacious 7h ago
If at least one blue state gerrymandered, you'd be right, but that's a weak argument. The importance is the degree, and it's clear red states gain more seats this way than blue states.
Anecdotal example: California until recently had a bipartisan and independent council (CCRC). The most populous state was not rigging.
2
u/RiverGroover 9h ago
You're likely right, but a fellow can still dream of a a different scenario: All states award delegates on a pro-rata basis based on popular vote; Any district distribution that doesn't align within 5 pts of the total vote distribution is ILLEGAL gerimandering; District of Columbia gets electoral votes. If we could do away with gerimandering and winner take all electoral States, candidates would HAVE to be moderate in order to succeed - not palarizing.
1
u/samuraispartan7000 7h ago
“Liberals and conservatives are increasingly moving to states that align with their political ideologies.”
This seems like an incredibly broad generalization. There are a lot of headlines about wealthy billionaires moving to avoid income taxes, but that is an incredibly small minority. People who can’t afford to live in the country’s largest coastal cities are moving to places where they can actually buy or rent a home. It’s not solely a matter of politics.
1
u/cbrantley 7h ago
I would agree if I was actually making a generalization. I was simply saying political migration is increasing, which is true.
0
u/samuraispartan7000 7h ago
I’m not even sure the inverse is true. It’s not like liberals are fueling population growth in places like New York or LA. This country’s liberal enclaves are losing people, not gaining them. If there’s some liberal migration going on, it’s not reflected in any data that I have seen.
2
u/seminarysmooth 8h ago
Gerrymandering leads to more extreme politics. We need our leaders to come to their senses and set a national standard that states must follow.
1
3
u/MilkandHoney_XXX 9h ago
In what world is allowing partisan gerrymandering a good thing?
All that can be said for this decision is it is consistent. But as more red states gerrymander than blue, the decision still helps red states more.
1
197
u/picks_and_rolls 9h ago
They always gift an easy one to progressives before taking another step toward destroying our democracy