Resolved: We need a constitutional amendment to mandate non-partisan redistricting committees for a

[UltraVires]

@Bookkeeper

Why not just use the existing Constitutional authority under Article 1:

Section. 4.
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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.***

This appears to be specific authority which would allow implementation of a single standard election process for the whole country.

To make regulations regarding the “Manner of holding elections” doesn’t seem to me to allow redistricting by Congress without twisting those words beyond comprehension.

[Bookkeeper]

@jtgain

To make regulations regarding the “Manner of holding elections” doesn’t seem to me to allow redistricting by Congress without twisting those words beyond comprehension.

As per Wikipedia (Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia):

One of the most significant ways that States regulate the “manner” of elections is their power to draw election districts. Although in theory Congress could draw the district map for each State,[47] it has not exercised this level of oversight. Congress has, however, required the States to conform to certain practices when drawing districts. States are currently required to use a single-member district scheme, whereby the State is divided into as many election districts for Representatives in the House of Representatives as the size of its representation in that body (that is to say, Representatives cannot be elected at-large from the whole State unless the State has only one Representative in the House, nor can districts elect more than 1 Representative).[48]

Congress once imposed additional requirements that districts be composed of contiguous territory, be “compact,” and have equal populations within each State.[49] Congress has allowed those requirements to lapse,[50] but the Supreme Court has re-imposed the population requirement on the States under the Equal Protection Clause[25] and is suspicious of districts that do not meet the other “traditional” districting criteria of compactness and contiguity.[51]

[UltraVires]

@Bookkeeper

As per Wikipedia (Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia):

Very good cite. I admit my error.

[Terr]

[California’s redistricting success in jeopardy?

A Supreme Court case challenges independent panels that set legislative boundaries.](California's redistricting success in jeopardy? - POLITICO)

[lance_strongarm]

Let’s just get rid of districts and do proportional representation. No waste votes.

[PatrickLondon]

@Trinopus

Who selects the non-partisan commission? Who selects the non-partisan committee that selects the non-partisan commission? Who selects the non-partisan board that selects…

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If it helps the discussion, the independent Boundary Commission is composed of lawyers, former professional civil servants and expert advisors on the more nebulous geographic criteria set by law (such as, to quote from their website “local ties, geographical features, and minimising change from existing constituency boundaries”). Then there’s a whole process of consultation, in which local people get to have their say - and of course the party organisations will dress up their arguments in terms of whether people in one part of proposed constituency really have much to do with people in another part (that just happens to vote differently), or whether they usually shop and travel to work in some other part, and suchlike considerations. But the final recommendations

Constituencies also have to fit within existing local government boundaries, and any time those are reformed there is usually an almighty row: I seem to remember that one of the many reasons for Scottish disengagement with London was that, before devolution and the Scottish Parliament, the then government in London pushed through a local government reform that was thought to be unduly partial in their favour in its effects.

Final recommendations have to be approved by Parliamentary Order, but if there were seen to be direct partisan “fiddling” it would be noted in the electoral campaigning balance. It’s widely held that the present boundaries favour the opposition unduly because of population shifts, but the last five-yearly review was not set in motion as a result of inter-party disagreements within the government.