SCOTUS Biased Against Basic Mathematical Arguments

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7328
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: SCOTUS Biased Against Basic Mathematical Arguments

Postby Zamfir » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:06 am UTC

@sardia, It seems a matter of degree. Some amount of selfish political calculation is accepted even by the opposing judges, just not every amount. The question under debate is not whether the state government was acting in its partisan interest when it made the map, but where it becomes 'too much'. And more relevant, if the courts can decide what's too much, or they should leave it to congress.

Look at these quotes below, from anti-gerrymandering opinions in the previous case. It's 'sometimes it does not', 'is sufficiently demonstrable', or 'sole motivator'. They are looking at degrees.

They are all accepting that partisan considerations are allowed in the process, but they are (in different ways) trying to pin down when it becomes too much in a way that a court can rule on,by tieing it to equal protection.
The use of purely political considerations in drawing district boundaries is not a “necessary evil” that, for lack of judicially manageable standards, the Constitution inevitably must tolerate. Rather, pure politics often helps to secure constitutionally important democratic objectives. But sometimes it does not. [...]

However equal districts may be in population as a formal matter, the consequence of a vote cast can be minimized or maximized, Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 734, n. 6 (1983), and if unfairness is sufficiently demonstrable, the guarantee of equal protection condemns it as a denial of substantial equality.

In my view, when partisanship is the legislature’s sole motivation—when any pretense of neutrality is forsaken unabashedly and all traditional districting criteria are subverted for partisan advantage—the governing body cannot be said to have acted impartially.

Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests