The Supreme Court’s About To Hear A Case That Could Make Partisan Gerrymandering Even Worse

[Triana]

After a GOP-led attempt to impeach one of Arizona’s chief legislative map drawers failed — former Gov. Jan Brewer (R) complained that the state’s redistricting commission tried to “elevate ‘competitiveness’ over other goals” — the Republican-controlled legislature has turned to one of the GOP’s most powerful allies: the Supreme Court of the United States.

This fight between Arizona Republicans and the state’s redistricting commission is now before the Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a case the justices will hear on Monday. The GOP-controlled state legislature challenges a 2000 ballot initiative that empowers a redistricting commission — and not the state legislature itself — to draw Arizona’s congressional maps.

This lawsuit follows another attack on the commission by state lawmakers and Brewer. In 2011, Brewer called a special session of the legislature to impeach commission chair Collen Mathis. Although the state senate obliged in this attempt to remove Mathis from office, the state supreme court later reinstated her. Under Arizona law, the commission chair may only be removed for “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or inability to discharge the duties of office.”

. . .

The case before the Supreme Court focuses on a provision of the Constitution which provides that “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof.” The state legislature, represented by Republican überlawyer Paul Clement, argues that “Legislature” means the state’s “representative lawmaking body.” So a ballot initiative that bypasses such a body and hands redistricting power to a commission is unconstitutional under this theory.

THE REST OF THE STORY: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/27/3627527/supreme-courts-hear-case-make-partisan-gerrymandering-even-worse/

[CincyDem]

1. Imagine- the idea of making districts competitive. The gall of these people.

in case it's necessary.

[HereSince1628]

5. If you're ahead, you want advantage, if you're playing catch-up you want competitive

the dynamic in place sort of explains the geography of districting.

In grad school taking a course in quantitative biology, I learned how to analyze leaf shape in terms of area vs edge length. Highly convoluted shapes become easily recognizable with that value.

I've known since that time that algorithms are available to create 'least perimeter' maps that produce mapable shapes with largest area to perimeter ratios, which is another way of saying the most regular shapes. They represent a sort of null hypothesis against which leaf shapes can be analyzed for evidence of evolutionary patterns of ecological significance.

But, population density can be substituted for area. And you can apply the same technology to the subdivision of state maps into congressional districts of more or less identical populations with either 'most' or least' regular shapes.

Congressional redistricting -could- be as simple as allowing such algorithms to create a small number of maps (3-5) with the most regular shapes...from which legislative choices could be made.

BUT the exact same technology can be applied to density of political parties' voters, ethnicities, income, etc. And maps can be generated that maximize,minimize or optimize one party, ethnicity, income, etc relative to another. I have no way of knowing, but I do suspect that gerrymanders use such technology to create maps that reflect their choice of what the content of the district should look like.

[randys1]

2. GOP knows they cant have any power unless they take it against the will of the people

As you know I believe they are AT WAR with America.

This is one of the battles, and it is a big one, if they win, America loses.

[Andy823]

3. The right wing Supreme court must go

This is another classic example of WHY we can no afford to have another republican in the WH. How would this country survive if a republican was allowed to put new right wing judges on the bench? Now I don't care how much some here hate Hillary, she is not my first choice either, but can we take a chance of getting more radical right wing judges just because someone won't vote because their first choice candidate did not get the nomination?

We have all seen just how bad it was when George W. was allowed to pick new judges, do we really want that to happen again if brother Jeb were to win because democrats did not turn out to vote?

[mountain grammy]

4. Ah the corrupt Supreme Court, at it again..

the Reagan/Bush/Bush gifts that keep on giving. Scalia and Thomas should have been impeached years ago.