SCotUS Redistricting Case 12-10

[UTUSN]

So the CO Supreme Court overturned the redistricting hijacking there; the TX case is going to federal court later this month but is not said to follow CO as a precedent; and Tom "DePlane-DePlane" DELAY has succeeded in getting his subpoena quashed on the grounds that a U.S. Rep only needs to testify if his info is unique. This other SCotUS case *might* be another stab at their rehabilitating themselves? Or just staying terminally tarnished.

******QUOTE*****

http://reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/news/files/29.shtml
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Trevor Potter
September 25, 2003 202-862-5092

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules Oral Argument in Pennsylvania Redistricting Case for December 10, 2003

On December 10, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Vieth v. Jubelirer, concerning whether a state legislature, in this case Pennsylvania, can redraw congressional districts so as to minimize the likelihood that a particular political party’s candidates will win in the election.

In August 2003, the Reform Institute responded to gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Vieth v. Jubelirer, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to end gerrymandering and restore competitive elections. The Reform Institute urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike-down current redistricting practices that have led to extremely partisan gerrymandering and the accompanying decline in competitive Congressional elections.

Oral Argument in Vieth v. Jubelirer is scheduled for December 10, 2003 at 11 a.m. at the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

###

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031208fa_fact
.... The question before the Supreme Court later this month is not whether partisan gerrymandering is wise but whether it is constitutional. The issues are strikingly similar to those faced by the Warren Court in the early sixties—and the stakes may be as large as well. The framers of the Constitution designed the House of Representatives to reflect the popular will. James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, said the House was meant to be a “numerous and changeable body,” where the members would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” ....

*****UNQUOTE****

[jiacinto]

1. Tough to call on this on e

Really tough to call, but I think they will rule against the people claiming it's too partisan.

[goobergunch]

2. This is an interesting case

Under the Bandemer precedent, the PA gerrymander would be constitutional. However, the fact that four justices voted to take the case IMHO means that the Supreme Court is looking at revising the Bandemer standard. I'm not sure which way they're going to go with this, but I hope that they strike down the current map...somebody tell me that my resident PA-6 and nearby PA-13 are not grossly distorted.

[UTUSN]

3. Some Older Articles (on Bandemer)

******QUOTE*****1st link is about 1/5th of the way down:

http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/usnews.htm
.... Three Democratic voters sued in federal court, claiming that the redistricting had deprived them of their right to equal protection. A 1986 Supreme Court decision in a partisan gerrymandering case from Indiana opened the door to this constitutional argument, but the decision provided few guidelines for its application and has been invoked reluctantly and inconsistently in the lower courts.

A special three-judge federal district court in Harrisburg dismissed the Democrats' case on the ground that they had not demonstrated sufficient injury, which the court defined as being "completely shut out of the political process." In their appeal, the Democrats are asking the justices to take a new look at the 1986 precedent, Davis v. Bandemer, and "clarify that extreme partisan gerrymandering is not only justifiable in theory but remediable in actual practice." ....

The Pennsylvania Democrats, represented by a Washington lawyer, Paul M. Smith, quoted judges and scholars who have recently called on the court to address partisan gerrymandering. Richard A. Posner, the federal appeals court judge in Chicago, argued in a recent book that "judicial insouciance" toward partisan gerrymanders and the creation of safe seats had undermined "electoral competition, the lifeblood of democracy."

In rejecting the Democrats' case, the district court in Pennsylvania said that in order to bring a successful challenge to a partisan gerrymander, plaintiffs must show that they have been not only outmaneuvered, but also cut out of the political process, to the extent of not being able to register, organize, campaign or raise money. ....


http://www.hillnews.com/news/092403/democrats.aspx
.... Four House Democrats from Texas — Martin Frost, Chris Bell, Sheila Jackson Lee and Nick Lampson — as well as Georgia’s Rep. John Lewis (D), have filed amicus briefs in the Pennsylvania case, which experts say could have a big impact on the makeup of Congress.

Depending on how the Supreme Court decides, it could end the tradition of partisan gerrymandering — ....

If the court revises its 1986 precedent, Davis v. Bandemer, and creates a workable standard for differentiating between “normal” considerations of political factors in redistricting and excessive use of party and partisan data, as the plaintiffs ask, it could halt GOP redistricting efforts in Texas and Colorado. In Bandemer, a majority of justices could not agree on such a standard. If a majority does next year (12-10), it could prompt an explosion of legal challenges to the new maps in other states. ....

*****UNQUOTE****