Supreme Court allows states to use unlawfully gerrymandered congressional maps in the 2022 midterm elections

submitted by [deleted] from theconversation.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

More nonsense. Just read the article, or also consider the obvious ethical implications. It's really easy to understand. Here:

Such redistricting can lead to racial gerrymandering, which can diminish the power of racial groups and is unconstitutional or unlawful under federal law.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What would you have the Supreme Court do?

Draw the map itself? Surely that would be a greater miscarriage of justice.

Use preexisting maps? They don't have the right number of districts.

Postpone elections? Send things back to the legislature? Without district boundaries, you can't have candidates or a campaign. November is five months from now.

It's honestly scary that such an article could be published and taken seriously.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OK - good questions.

1st - to uphold the law that "racial gerrymandering... is unconstitutional or unlawful under federal law," continue the law that was in place until 2019 that examined partisan gerrymandering for biases that include class, party, race, and other manipulations. It should be possible to challenge gerrymandering practices, in order to assure fair a fair cross-section of democratic voters in every district.Before 2019, it was illegal to make those divisions along party lines, and thereby disenfranchise minority party (Dem or Rep) voters in districts. If the Supreme Court would continue to require states to arrange fair voting districts - those that are divided because of population percentages, rather than rednecks vs the educated - this would improve the democratic process rather than limit it to a specific party (Rep or Dem).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that affirming things like that is probably on hold while this supposedly cataclysmic reconsideration of Roe v. Wade plays out. That's one of the most frustrating things about the judicial process. It is slow.

This is particularly frustrating for people like you who want things to be as democratic as possible. I don't. I just want shit to work.