Looking out for you.
The Court has already decided that too much partisanship is illegal but has not defined “too much.” It asserts that, districts being drawn by politicians make the process political but would not to accept the outcome if it goes too far. The difficulty was finding a convincing methodology to define how far is too far..
In the first days of July 2017, the U. S. Supreme Court threw out North Carolina’s congressional district maps because the State legislature had packed two districts with an overwhelming majority of Afro-Americans to dilute minority influence in other districts. The gimmick contributed to guarantee control of one party over most districts. The Court ruled that: "A state may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason."
Now the Court must address the issue of political gerrymandering, the manipulation of boundaries with the purpose of guaranteeing control not based on race but on partisanship, a decision that has the potential of contributing more than any other to kill the gerrymander monster.
2018: The Year to Stop Gerrymandering:
This is THE Issue that affects all other issues.
Whoever controls Congress imposes that party's agenda.
If we want:
• affordable health care.
• affordable housing
• affordable education
• fair wages
• protection of our civil rights
• protection of the environment
We need to end the abominable practice of Gerrymandering once and for all.
ALL OTHER ISSUES DEPEND ON THIS ONE
READ JANUARY UPDATE HERE
A three-judge panel in Wisconsin accepted a new standard that had never been presented to a court before that uses political science quantitative measures. The Efficiency Gap is a method used to measure the amount of bias in the apportionment. Having that tool, two of the three judges ruled the districting illegal. Now that decision is going before a Court with five conservatives and four liberals, but much might depend on the opinion of Justice Kennedy who recently voted to repeal gerrymandering based on racial grounds.
Though judges are expected to decide the cases based on the objective consideration of the facts, history has shown that judges tend to let their own ideologies supersede objectivity. Yet very often, their sense of justice prevails and they shed their ideological straitjackets to do what is right.
Though judges tend to follow their inclinations, they do not live in a vacuum. Prevailing social convictions and tendencies do influence their decisions. Racial issues have been a dramatic example of these shifting of perceptions. Having ruled against racial gerrymandering as near as the first week of July, there is a real opportunity that the despicable practice of gerrymandering be dealt with once and for all
Let your voice be heard against gerrymandering, wherever it may come from.
SUPREME COURT HEARD THE CASE
The U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wisconsin’s gerrymandering case that will have repercussions in multiple other states. A three-judge panel in Wisconsin struck down the redistricting done by the Republican legislature that virtually guarantees Republican control of the legislature and congressional seats even if they lose the election.
The lines are drawn. Four liberal judges on one side and four conservatives in the other headed by Chief Justice John Roberts playing the Republican game by not entering into the arguments for or against gerrymandering but arguing that the Court should not intervene in political matters. This is a flawed and very weak argument as it was the Court that decided to halt the Wisconsin judicial panel from enforcing its order to redraw the map. If the Court is hearing the case is because it decided to do so.
The troglodyte newcomer, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a devout originalist, challenged the attorney asking for a stop to gerrymandering to tell him where does the Constitution say that the Court could intervene in an electoral process. The judicial Cro Magnon had to shut up after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted reminding him that it had already done so when the Court made the One Man One Vote ruling.
YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED
Our democracy in the hands of one man
It will all boil down to what Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, decides. Though he voted for gerrymandering in a previous case, he wrote that the court might be obligated to strike down some gerrymandered districts if challengers could show that they violated the constitutional rights of one party's voters. In this case, the mathematician that mapped the genetic code, together with other scientists, have brought forth the algorithm that proves it. During oral arguments, Kennedy repeatedly challenged the lawyers defending Wisconsin's boundaries but posed no questions to the plaintiffs seeking to overturn them. In addition, Justice Kennedy recently voted to impede gerrymandering on racial grounds.
Our next step
If the Court were to decide in favor of dishonesty and look the other way while politicians smother the will of the people, and even if it banned gerrymandering, we will need to address the issue State by State.
Please confirm your endorsement
All members of the U. S. House of Representatives and one-third of the members of the U. S. Senate will be up for election in November of this year, and so will many governors and State legislators. We will have the opportunity of changing the political landscape and help elect candidates that publicly endorse banning Gerrymandering.
It is our duty as citizens to participate actively in promoting Federal and State legislation to do away with this brazen practice of the fox guarding the chicken coop. The best antidote to this dishonest practice is to take that power away from the legislators and making the distribution impartial. It is imperative that a neutral commission is in charge and the distribution is made automatically by a computer with an unbiased algorithm.
TYPES OF GERRYMANDERING
Packing: Concentrating opposition voters into a district to reduce influence on surrounding districts.
Cracking: Breaking up districts and spreading the opposition voters among several districts.
Hijacking: Changing boundaries so two strong opposition leaders compete with each other fractions of their previous districts leaderless.
Kidnapping: Taking strongholds out of a district to be stuffed with areas favoring the other party.