# Partisan Gerrymandering - Rucho v. Common Cause
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 6, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139 "2019-06-06T19:45:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/1 "2019-06-06T19:45:46Z")
This case and the sister case, _Lamone v. Benisek_, are set to be decided this month. Both raise the issue of whether partisan gerrymandering is prohibited. The [SCOTUS Blog page and actual questions presented are:](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rucho-v-common-cause-2/)
[ol]
[li]Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims;[/li][li]Whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable;[/li][li]Whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.[/li][/ol]
I think the answers are going to be No, No - not based on evidence presented, and No. In previous iterations of these questions, the court’s liberal justices have been in favor of getting involved in partisan gerrymandering, and I don’t see their views changing on this matter. Questions during oral arguments seem to indicate conservatives taking the status quo and not interceding.
Last minute predictions?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/2 "2019-06-06T19:50:46Z")
I’ll predict that the Republican justices will win, which is generally my default prediction for SCOTUS cases these days. There’s 5 of them, after all. Maybe very occasionally one of them votes against the Republican consensus, but that’s rare enough to be notable each time it happens, and this case is significant enough (and potentially dangerous enough to Republican politics) that I think it’s very unlikely to be one of them.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/3 "2019-06-06T20:55:32Z")
I say it will be Yes, No–and never, and we don’t reach this question because of our holding in #2.
5-4 to end court involvement in partisan gerrymandering complaints.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/4 "2019-06-25T16:20:59Z")
This decision will come out this week, last chance for predictions 🙂
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/5 "2019-06-27T14:14:07Z")
I was right! The Republican justices won.
This is my shocked face. 😉
> **[Supreme Court decides federal judges cannot block gerrymandering](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html)**
>
> The Supreme Court rules that federal courts may not block gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision that falls along partisan lines.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/6 "2019-06-27T14:21:44Z")
Another win for Matt Yglesias’s philosophy of SCOTUS jurisprudence:
[https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1144248513821388800](https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1144248513821388800)
> [@](#):
>
> SCOTUS’ partisan gerrymandering ruling was clearly correct under the constitutional principle of “this is good for Republicans, which is what most of the justices are.”
---
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/7 "2019-06-27T14:39:29Z")
If if fucks over Democrats, it’s A-OK for the Supremes! RIP Democracy.
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/8 "2019-06-27T17:34:59Z")
I am not shocked because I agree with the majority that the issue is non-justiciable. Trying to decide exactly how much partisanship in drawing districts is too much is not subject to easily discoverable and manageable standards (_Baker v. Carr_). It’s a classic case of the maxim that not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/9 "2019-06-27T18:20:07Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> I am not shocked because I agree with the majority that the issue is non-justiciable.
Sure it is.
[Shortest Splitline Algorithm.](https://rangevoting.org/GerryExec.html)
Poof…done. No muss, no fuss. Hit enter on the computer and done.
The question is why wouldn’t the frigging Supreme Court of the US want to see the FFs vision come true. Not a vision of factions tilting the scales but a vision of one man, one vote.
Oh…right…Originalism is only when it suits them.
I was always shocked at the mayhem Baker v. Carr caused. It was a no-brainer yet it destroyed two men and took the court to the brink.
---
### Author:  [@Running\_with\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Running_with_Scissors)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/10 "2019-06-27T19:24:09Z")
[If this report is indicative](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule) of the public at large, then maybe it’s time for more Democratic-leaning states to do the same.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/11 "2019-06-27T19:27:25Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> Trying to decide exactly how much partisanship in drawing districts is too much is not subject to easily discoverable and manageable standards (_Baker v. Carr_). It’s a classic case of the maxim that not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.
As an aside, if anyone wants a good run down of _Baker v. Carr_ the podcast More Perfect did a good episode on this (link in the quote below). I think that podcast went waaay downhill but this is when they were good and the drama of this real life case is fascinating.
> [@](#):
>
> When Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?”, there were a lot of answers he could have given. After all, he had presided over some of the most important decisions in the court’s history — cases that dealt with segregation in schools, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, just to name a few. But his answer was a surprise: He said, “Baker v. Carr,” a 1962 redistricting case. [SOURCE](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/the-political-thicket)
---
### Author:  [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/12 "2019-06-27T19:30:58Z")
IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS justice, but I can’t see how they can just say “this is an issue for voters to decide” when the very issue is that the practice \*prevents \*voters from deciding.
And I don’t buy that it’s only because gerrymandering helps Republicans. I live in Illinois, where it’s a huge boon to Democrats.
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-supreme-court-legislative-redistricting-ruling-20190627-khynkxbj6nhc3iolaalm5qrjiu-story.html](https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-supreme-court-legislative-redistricting-ruling-20190627-khynkxbj6nhc3iolaalm5qrjiu-story.html)
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/13 "2019-06-27T19:34:40Z")
> [@Akaj](#):
>
> IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS justice, but I can’t see how they can just say “this is an issue for voters to decide” when the very issue is that the practice \*prevents \*voters from deciding.
>
> And I don’t buy that it’s only because gerrymandering helps Republicans. I live in Illinois, where it’s a huge boon to Democrats.
It doesn’t _only_ help Republicans, it just _mostly_ helps Republicans.
---
### Author:  [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/14 "2019-06-27T19:56:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> It doesn’t _only_ help Republicans, it just _mostly_ helps Republicans.
But they also nixed the census citizenship question, which would have helped Republicans, too. Call me a Pollyanna, but I simply don’t believe SCOTUS justices can be that blindly partisan.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/15 "2019-06-27T20:06:36Z")
> [@Akaj](#):
>
> But they also nixed the census citizenship question, which would have helped Republicans, too. Call me a Pollyanna, but I simply don’t believe SCOTUS justices can be that blindly partisan.
John Roberts was the swing on this one.
He is reliably conservative but I think he has a sense of how history will judge him and he cares about that so…rarely…he will oppose some egregious decision.
Very, very rarely but I really think he cares how he will be perceived in history books (i.e. his legacy).
Alito and Thomas couldn’t give a shit about that. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are still question marks.
---
### Author:  [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/16 "2019-06-27T20:09:14Z")
> [@Akaj](#):
>
> But they also nixed the census citizenship question, which would have helped Republicans, too. Call me a Pollyanna, but I simply don’t believe SCOTUS justices can be that blindly partisan.
But you seem to be contradicting yourself there - on one hand you posit that their finding makes no logical fucking sense (which it doesn’t, for exactly the reason you put forward) ; yet on the other hand you nix the idea that they could have reached this absurd reasoning due to partisanship. But what else is there ? Would you rather believe they’re just dummies ?
> [@Whack-a-mole](#):
>
> Sure it is.
>
> [Shortest Splitline Algorithm.](https://rangevoting.org/GerryExec.html)
>
> Poof…done. No muss, no fuss. Hit enter on the computer and done.
It’s not quite that simple, due to population concentrations and geographical repartitions and so on. To put it simply, and stereotypically, if for generations Foo voters have been pushed towards or confined within a given zone via various socio-economic pressures, and even though they represent 50% of the total population they are only really present in 10% of a given geographical area, then a blind algorithm will give disproportionate weight to Non-Yellow voters (depending on the exact mechanics of the vote).
And by Foo I of course mean non-white.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/17 "2019-06-27T20:15:24Z")
> [@Kobal2](#):
>
> It’s not quite that simple, due to population concentrations and geographical repartitions and so on. To put it simply, and stereotypically, if for generations Foo voters have been pushed towards or confined within a given zone via various socio-economic pressures, and even though they represent 50% of the total population they are only really present in 10% of a given geographical area, then a blind algorithm will give disproportionate weight to Non-Yellow voters (depending on the exact mechanics of the vote).
> And by Foo I of course mean non-white.
It is that simple.
Because anything else is unfairly weighting the system.
As soon as you start giving preference…even for “good and noble” reasons you are on the path to corruption.
Draw arbitrary lines (but based on population). On average it should even out.
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/18 "2019-06-27T20:42:14Z")
> [@Akaj](#):
>
> IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS justice, but I can’t see how they can just say “this is an issue for voters to decide” when the very issue is that the practice \*prevents \*voters from deciding.
>
> And I don’t buy that it’s only because gerrymandering helps Republicans. I live in Illinois, where it’s a huge boon to Democrats.
>
> [U.S. Supreme Court decision that puts partisan gerrymandering ‘beyond reach’ of federal courts a win for Illinois Democrats – Chicago Tribune](https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-supreme-court-legislative-redistricting-ruling-20190627-khynkxbj6nhc3iolaalm5qrjiu-story.html)
That part threw me too. How the fuck are legislatures going to decide gerrymandering when the legislature has been gerrymandered to not represent the will of the people?
In Wisconsin the democrats won statewide election by a huge margin but lost the state assembly due to gerrymandering. Its an idiotic decision.
This is why democrats need to gerrymander the fuck out of every state they can. That way at least 1 conservative SCOTUS judge will join the 4 leftward judges to oveturn it.
As long as gerrymandering only benefits the GOP and harms the democrats, the 5 GOP justices will support it.
---
### Author:  [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/19 "2019-06-27T21:15:52Z")
> [@Kobal2](#):
>
> But you seem to be contradicting yourself there - on one hand you posit that their finding makes no logical fucking sense (which it doesn’t, for exactly the reason you put forward) ; yet on the other hand you nix the idea that they could have reached this absurd reasoning due to partisanship. But what else is there ? Would you rather believe they’re just dummies ?
I guess I’d rather believe there are actual legal principles I don’t fully understand. Why they deserve the benefit of the doubt is beginning to escape me, however.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/20 "2019-06-27T23:08:01Z")
> [@Akaj](#):
>
> But they also nixed the census citizenship question, which would have helped Republicans, too. Call me a Pollyanna, but I simply don’t believe SCOTUS justices can be that blindly partisan.
Sorry but no; they did not “nix the citizenship question”. They remanded it due to evidence which conflicts with sworn testimony. Absent that apparent contradiction, the question would have been okay.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139.md?page=2)