Gerrymandering, For Lack Of A Better Word, IS Good...

[carpedm9587]

That's apportionment - the number is tied to representation.

Clause 2: Method of choosing electors[edit]

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Source

Umm...I was responding to a sub-thread on redistricting - which is what my response was about.

[carpedm9587]

Depends on if we're talking about state legislatures or just the House of Representatives. The Constitution says:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."

There thus seems to be no requirement for a constitutional amendment to enact some degree of anti-gerrymandering legislature for the House of Representatives, though not state legislatures. I wonder if that will become a major issue in upcoming House/Senate elections.

I stand corrected! Cool! I just larned me somfin! Thanks!

[JimL]

Actually, Scalia (and Thomas, who joined his opinion) wanted to dismiss the whole case for lack of standing, which would have left the commission in place. He said the reason he joined Robert's dissent was because he thought the majority opinion's argument was so bad that he wanted to signal his disapproval of it. In terms of functional result (i.e. whether the commission stays or not), it was 7-2.

If Scalia wanted to dismiss the case for lack of standing, then what was his argument in support of that opinion? Why did he believe that the State legislature had no standing in this case?

Thomas's argument on the other hand, was in my opinion ridiculous if he actually agreed with the majority ruling. He argued that it would be unconstitutional to take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the elected representatives and put it into the hands of an independent body. Seems to me that was in agreement with the dissenting view of Roberts. But, when you take partison gerrymandering into account, then the elected representatives are not really representative of the electorate. That is the whole point and reason for taking it out of the legislatures hands in the first place. So to me, by the looks of it, Scalia and Thomas actually agreed with the dissenting opinion of Roberts, that the electorate doesn't matter, that redistricting belongs in the hands of the state legislature, i.e the representatives of the people as a constitutional right, irregardless of biased gerrymandering.

But the job of the Supreme Court in the situation of judicial review is supposed to be to determine whether something is constitutional, not whether it is a good idea or not.

True, and the majority opinion in this case was that an Independent redistricting commision was not unconstitutional.

The Constitution quite clearly gives the power of districting to the state legislature, not an independent body. Now, if the state legislature were to have created the commission, as I believe is the case in other states, one could argue it was delegated by them, but that was not the case in Arizona--it was created directly via referendum. One has to adopt an arguably sketchy interpretation of "legislature" from the Constitution to consider this a case of the legislature creating the districts as the Constitution requires.

Well 5 Justices, or according to you 7 Supreme Court Justices, disagreed with you on that. But in this particular case, I believe I read that, it comes under the purview of the Arizona State Constitution, and the state constitution allows the change by referendum.

At any rate, my argument was not that, independent redistricting commissions are Constitutional, it's that they should be constitutional because legislatures were meant to be a representation of the electorate, and with the biased gerrymandering of districts, they are not. I think that may be a good reason to interpret the electorate to be aligned as part and parcel of the legislature, although I don't know if that was the basis of the majority opinion in this case.

[Terraceth]

If Scalia wanted to dismiss the case for lack of standing, then what was his argument in support of that opinion? Why did he believe that the State legislature had no standing in this case?

Did you consider, I don't know, just reading his opinion to see?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1314_3ea4.pdf

Just do a search for "SCALIA, J., dissenting" if you want to get right to it. I could understand reluctance to read it if it was some massive opinion, but it's a measly 6 pages.

Though I'm not sure why his reasoning matters here. The point was that his conclusion would have resulted in the same functional result as the actual decision did, even if the reasoning was drastically different, and so that as I noted, "in terms of functional result, it was 7-2."

Thomas's argument on the other hand, was in my opinion ridiculous if he actually agreed with the majority ruling. He argued that it would be unconstitutional to take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the elected representatives and put it into the hands of an independent body. Seems to me that was in agreement with the dissenting view of Roberts. But, when you take partison gerrymandering into account, then the elected representatives are not really representative of the electorate. That is the whole point and reason for taking it out of the legislatures hands in the first place. So to me, by the looks of it, Scalia and Thomas actually agreed with the dissenting opinion of Roberts, that the electorate doesn't matter, that redistricting belongs in the hands of the state legislature, i.e the representatives of the people as a constitutional right, irregardless of biased gerrymandering.

At any rate, my argument was not that, independent redistricting commissions are Constitutional, it's that they should be constitutional because legislatures were meant to be a representation of the electorate, and with the biased gerrymandering of districts, they are not.

Then that's an argument to change the Constitution, not an argument against the SCOTUS's actual decision.

[Teallaura]

Umm...I was responding to a sub-thread on redistricting - which is what my response was about.

Yeah, yeah, I already said I got them mixed up.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, yeah, I already said I got them mixed up.

Sorry. Missed that post.

[Teallaura]

Sorry. Missed that post.

No prob!

[JimL]

Did you consider, I don't know, just reading his opinion to see?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1314_3ea4.pdf

Just do a search for "SCALIA, J., dissenting" if you want to get right to it. I could understand reluctance to read it if it was some massive opinion, but it's a measly 6 pages.

Though I'm not sure why his reasoning matters here. The point was that his conclusion would have resulted in the same functional result as the actual decision did, even if the reasoning was drastically different, and so that as I noted, "in terms of functional result, it was 7-2."


It seems odd that you apparently, while unable to read through Scalia's opinion, were able to read through Thomas's. Or did you? Because Thomas states this at the end of his opinion:

"Although the straightforward text of Article I, §4, prohibits redistricting by an unelected, independent commission, Article III limits our power to deciding cases or controversies. Because I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that the Arizona Legislature lacks Article III standing to assert an institutional injury against another entity of state government, I would dismiss its suit. I respectfully dissent."

Then that's an argument to change the Constitution, not an argument against the SCOTUS's actual decision.

I don't know, it's a tough one. In my opinion, both arguments are persuasive regarding the Constitutionality, or not, of Independent commission, but the Court ruled that they are. It's a tough case to decide either way if you ask me, so for the sake of checking the abuse of power as seen in the redistricting process I'd side with the majority. I'd also amend the U.S. Constitution for the same reason.