# Partisan Gerrymandering - Rucho v. Common Cause **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/41 "2019-06-28T13:32:34Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Political parties not being entitled to proportional representation is the argument I’ve used for awhile. I’m glad to see the Court agrees. > > I’m also surprised that so many of these decisions are 5-4. So situations like in Wisconsin where the democrats won 53% of the vote but only won 36% of the seats are acceptable? > **[2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Wisconsin_State_Assembly_election)** > > Robin Vos > Republican > Robin Vos > Republican > The Wisconsin State Assembly elections of 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. All 99 seats in the Wisconsin State Assembly were up for election. The Republican Party maintained a majority it has held since 2011, winning 63 seats, a loss of one seat, and 44.75% of the voting share. Despite winning a majority of ballots cast, the Democratic Party won only 36 seats, thus remaining a minority and gaining just one seat from the Republicans, Distr... ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/42 "2019-06-28T14:10:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It can be fixed, not only by states, **but by Congress**. States can enact their own constitutional provisions to prohibit all partisan gerrymandering or their courts can find such a principle in their own constitutions. Just because a court cannot do it does not mean it is unsolvable. Bolding mine. Now that SCOTUS has whiffed on this (though I appreciate your explanation, I respectfully disagree), I think the only solution is through Congress. We can’t rely on states to pass fairer districting laws piecemeal because state parties risk weakening themselves while their counterparts in other states continue to enjoy the benefits of unfair districts. And why wouldn’t both parties get behind this on a national level? Yes, at the moment, Republicans benefit more from gerrymandering, but over time it’s helped and hurt both parties. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/43 "2019-06-28T14:25:21Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > So situations like in Wisconsin where the democrats won 53% of the vote but only won 36% of the seats are acceptable? > > [2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Wisconsin_State_Assembly_election) My take (based on explanations above) is that SCOTUS can’t dirty its hands determining what’s acceptable. If they decide 53–\>36 crosses the line, what about 52–\>44? 50.1–\>49.9? There also seems to be an element of party affiliation not being protected wrt voting rights as race is, although I’m sure someone could demonstrate Wisconsin’s districts weaken representation for minorities as well. It all reminds me of a playground monitor refusing to intervene in an after-school fight where one kid is getting his ass handed to him because her union contract only lets her intervene during recess, not after school. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/44 "2019-06-28T14:29:39Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > 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? That’s some catch, that Catch 22. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/45 "2019-06-28T14:42:24Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > So situations like in Wisconsin where the democrats won 53% of the vote but only won 36% of the seats are acceptable? > > [2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Wisconsin_State_Assembly_election) “Unacceptable, but Constitutional.” ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/46 "2019-06-28T14:55:57Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > “Unacceptable, but Constitutional.” “Blatantly wrong, but not our problem.” ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/47 "2019-06-28T14:57:06Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > So situations like in Wisconsin where the democrats won 53% of the vote but only won 36% of the seats are acceptable? > > [2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Wisconsin_State_Assembly_election) The Supreme Court does not rule what is acceptable, only what is constitutional. Given that when the Constitution was passed Rhode Island which had 1.5% of the nations population got as many senators as Virginia, which had 19% of the population, it seems like they were okay with different areas getting different levels of representation. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/48 "2019-06-28T15:15:59Z")
[This](https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/vbzmZxiskqQeFzI0o2JynnxprN4=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/KENSOBMKNQ7ILKFUNRZ2H6JPWA.png) is one of the best diagrams I have seen on Gerrymandering. I think it shows that it is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a tool. It can be used for good to get a proportional representation (second from the left) or it can be used to let a party rule with a minority of votes (far right). You can also see that compact districts is not necessarily a good solution as it can give all power to a slight majority. Even as a (moderate) Republican I don’t believe that NC republicans are right in what they have done. I wish there was an easy way to fix it, but I don’t think the USSC should just step in and say “All gerrymandering is bad and must be outlawed. All voter districts must be rectangles. Here, give me a pen and a map, I’ll do it.” Sadly we don’t have a good way to really fix it. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/49 "2019-06-28T15:21:50Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The Supreme Court does not rule what is acceptable, only what is constitutional. Given that when the Constitution was passed Rhode Island which had 1.5% of the nations population got as many senators as Virginia, which had 19% of the population, it seems like they were okay with different areas getting different levels of representation. I don’t care what they were ok with. As the minority in power continues to shrink in absolute numbers, this representation imbalance is going to anger more and more voters. Large numbers of voters who see their will blunted by a fortunate few. This is not the recipe for good national governance. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/50 "2019-06-28T15:31:53Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > Sadly we don’t have a good way to really fix it. Baloney. See post 9. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/51 "2019-06-28T15:41:57Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Baloney. See post 9. Salami. Note in graphic that big compact blocks are not best at representing minority parties. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/52 "2019-06-28T15:44:45Z")
> [@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. > > 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. I’ve read the rest of what’s been posted in my absence, but I have to address this statement right here. Because it shows some horrible understanding of both what the “Founding Fathers” had in mind, and what Constitutional Law is all about. Indeed, what I am about to say should cause you to get some serious chills on the back of your neck: your statement here is almost precisely equivalent to the viewpoint of Clarence Thomas, J. regarding when Supreme Court precedent should be over-ruled. Let us assume _arguendo_ that the method you have linked is a desirable methodology for re-districting. You propose that the Supreme Court adopt it as being the **one and only** acceptable method for re-districting. To do that, the Supreme Court would have to determine that _no other method was constitutionally acceptable._ But, of course, the Supreme Court has already stated in prior opinions that it’s acceptable to gerrymander districts, specifically when doing so is done with the purpose of rectifying past issues of racism (see: Voting Rights Act and majority minority districts). And, we can assume that the Supreme Court would be ok with the idea that the legislators of South Carolina, say, decided that, while a “perfect” set of lines would put the panhandle of Lancaster County in the same district with the rest of the county, the nature of the development in the panhandle makes it more akin to the similar development in adjoining York County (across Sugar Creek), so that’s where they will attach it. In short, there are lots and lots of reasons that legislators (or commissions) use in deciding how to divide up the map. And here’s the important point: very few of those reasons are not acceptable according to the Constitution of the United States. Some of them are even highly desirable. So your attempt to limit the decennial re-districting problem to a simple algorithm, and then by fiat make that be the ONLY method acceptable runs into some troubles. Indeed, in all that you have posted, I’ve yet to see you establish exactly why your preferred method MUST be the only constitutionally acceptable method, or even that it IS constitutionally preferred. Which brings us to the “Founding Fathers” and their “vision”. How in the world do you think that, whatever vision you’d like to ascribe to a group of men who differed radically on a number of aspects of how to run the country (see: Hamilton v Jefferson), they were of the opinion that every individual’s vote should be exactly equal in value? The system the established showed they didn’t believe that. So I’m seeing that anyone who is an “originalist” or a “contextualist” or any of that nonsense is inherently going to agree with your proposed attempt at “one man, one vote”. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/53 "2019-06-28T15:52:13Z")
Also, I agree with [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/gerrymandering-ruling-could-have-been-worse/592879/) (you know, that bastion of right-wing thought) when they said: “Finally, there is the prudential argument. If you think abortion has politicized judicial nominations, just wait until judges are in the business of approving congressional districts. Even more than today, every judicial nominee will be vetted for party loyalty. Judges will become even harder to confirm. Partisans and interest groups will redouble their all-out warfare over the courts. And politicians and pundits will redouble their court bashing.” and “Once the federal courts plant themselves in the middle of the partisan crossfire over redistricting, they will never extricate themselves.” and “The bottom line, then, is that extreme gerrymandering needs to be curtailed, but not by politicizing the courts, rewiring the Constitution, and setting off all kinds of unpredictable consequences. It needs to be done the hard way: by changing the state and federal laws that govern redistricting.” ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/54 "2019-06-28T16:23:55Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > “The bottom line, then, is that extreme gerrymandering needs to be curtailed, but not by politicizing the courts, rewiring the Constitution, and setting off all kinds of unpredictable consequences. It needs to be done the hard way: by changing the state and federal laws that govern redistricting.” Bratwurst! (Couldn’t resist 🆒.) Here I agree with you (and the Atlantic) – a federal law is the only way to solve the issue, and that part won’t be easy. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/55 "2019-06-28T20:19:19Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The Supreme Court does not rule what is acceptable, only what is constitutional. Given that when the Constitution was passed Rhode Island which had 1.5% of the nations population got as many senators as Virginia, which had 19% of the population, it seems like they were okay with different areas getting different levels of representation. This is a completely bogus argument. It’s not clear who your “they” refers to, but the Senate is set up as equal state representation. It is Constitutional because he Constitution says so. State Legislatures are not permitted to be set up in a similar fashion. In addition, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that the way the Electoral College currently works is unconstitutional. In Gray Vs Sanders, they ruled that Georgia could use the county unit voting system. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes within a county was declared the winner of that county’s unit votes. The candidate receiving a majority of the available county unit votes was declared the winner. The Electoral College system as currently applied is unconstitutional Except for Presidential Elections. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/56 "2019-06-28T21:17:43Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Let us assume _arguendo_ that the method you have linked is a desirable methodology for re-districting. You propose that the Supreme Court adopt it as being the **one and only** acceptable method for re-districting. To do that, the Supreme Court would have to determine that _no other method was constitutionally acceptable._ This is really the meat of the issue and helps correct some misunderstandings about what the Supreme Court does. It is not the “Mr. Fixit Clinic.” It doesn’t look at things that legislatures do and try to make them better. If what the legislature has done doesn’t violate the constitution, it leaves it alone. And even if it could say that what Maryland and North Carolina did violated the Constitution, it must find some principled way to fix it with something that has general applicability. It cannot just say that those districts are unconstitutional because they are SOOOO BAD without specifying how bad they can be and still be okay, and further specifying why the standard of “how bad” is based upon something of principle and not just what gets 5 votes. Doing so is not deciding to shirk its duty. It is easy to assume power by claiming a duty. The Supreme Court is not the master of society, capable of solving all ills. A ruling the other way would have been an absolute disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/57 "2019-06-29T13:10:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yet the Supremes keep bowing out of “political questions”. Why? Because they chose it for themselves. > > That is an abdication of their responsibilities as an equal arm of the government. Nowhere does it say they have to do that. Flip it around - where does the Constitution say that very issue is justiciable? It doesn’t. The principle that not all questions are justiciable isn’t new - it dates back to 1849, at least, when the Supreme Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction to enforce the “republican form of government clause”: [Luther v. Borden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden). That clause states that “the United States” shall guarantee a republican for of government for each state, but that does not mean that the judicial branch of the United States is charged with enforcing that clause. The Court held that it was the elected branches which had that duty. There is an argument that the elected branches of the federal government were in fact exercising that authority in the Reconstruction when they (briefly) tried to force the Southern states to enfranchise the black populations of those states, and include the new black citizens in the machinery of government. A broader franchise was more consistent with the concept of a republican form of government, in light of the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/58 "2019-06-29T15:29:39Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > “Unacceptable, but Constitutional.” Said the 5 conservative judges when presented with evidence of conservatives cheating at democracy. If the democrats want the courts to overturn gerrymandering they need to really use the process themselves. And not just Maryland. I believe virtually every state where the GOP was able to gerrymander in 2010, they did so. The democrats do not. If democrats win big in 2020 on the state level they need to gerrymander the hell out of every district they can. Only after the 5 conservative judges see that democrats are benefiting from gerrymandering will 1+ of them join the 4 leftist judges to rule gerrymandering unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/59 "2019-06-29T16:27:49Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > I don’t care what they were ok with. As the minority in power continues to shrink in absolute numbers, this representation imbalance is going to anger more and more voters. Large numbers of voters who see their will blunted by a fortunate few. This is not the recipe for good national governance. There is a way to change what is constitutional. Just pass a constitutional amendment. Every state knew what the constitution said when they entered the union. The way to change the constitution is by amendment and not the Supreme Court acting as a superlegislature. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139/60 "2019-06-29T16:31:34Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Flip it around - where does the Constitution say that very issue is justiciable? It doesn’t. The principle that not all questions are justiciable isn’t new - it dates back to 1849, at least, when the Supreme Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction to enforce the “republican form of government clause”: [Luther v. Borden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden). Actually, goes back earlier than that. The first examples of the Supreme Court deferring to the other branches and refusing to decide a case include _Ware v. Hylton_, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796) and _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827). But the prime starting point is that seminal case _Marbury v. Madison_, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803), where Justice Marshall stated, > [@page 170](#): > > The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court. People complaining here about this decision have two basic complaints, neither of which is supported in my opinion. The first is that the Constitution **must** be violated by a system that works to advantage one political group at the expense of another in a way that frustrates the voting “power” (if you will) of that other group. And, yet, this particular methodology of frustrating political power has been in existence in our country for over 200 years, which doesn’t, of course, justify it inherently, but serves to suggest that it isn’t seen as being adverse to the provisions of the Constitution. Indeed, gerrymandering has been used in a “positive” way to help undo the effects of past racist voting systems. Thus, gerrymandering _per se_ is probably not unconstitutional, even if it isn’t always desirable. The second is that the federal court system **must** be able to remedy the perceived defect in the system caused by such actions. This is an even more basically incorrect assumption. The federal court system has limited powers by intent. There are many things that are best remedied by using systems other than that court system. State courts, for example, are available to handle this issue (if it’s truly “unconstitutional” as a violation of, for example, the due process or equal protection clauses, then it’s most likely similarly unconstitutional in virtually every state where it is practiced). Congress is another avenue for addressing these issues, since Congress already has at times used its inherent power over the process to set standards on the drawing of districts. And, of course, ultimately, the ballot box is available, because if the practice is so heinous that it **must** be corrected, then that will be clear to more than just a slight majority of the population, and eventually will be undone at the will of the people. We put much too much of our political aspirations on the decisions of the federal judiciary. This is why the process of picking members of that system is now so fraught with political combat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-v-common-cause/835139.md?page=4)