In my opinion, it goes against the spirit and word of the 13th and 14th amendments, plus against all that Madison and company talked about in the Federalist papers.
However, after reading reports from election law experts who attended the oral arguments of the Texas reredistricting case, it seems that the Justices were leaning in the following directions [according to UCLA's Rick Hansen and OSU's Ned Foley]:
"1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection, First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) ---apparently this leaves Vieth in place [one of the least helpful opinions since Furman v. Georgia], because it does not appear that Justice Kennedy was signalling he's ready to vote for nonjusticiablity distinguish between a statewide gerrymandering claim and the distric-specific claims that Stevens was interested in... for more read here
"2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person, one vote because of the failure to use updated census data.
"3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice Kennedy's vote)." Some find Thomas' silence "intriguing" while I find it wholly unsurprising for a me-too judge. Ginsburg and Alito were also silent, but she fell asleep at the end of arguments and Alito is probably not wanting to make a big splash. It was hard to read CJ Roberts views since he has tough questions both ways.
"4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority to affirmatively reject that stand)." Most commenters thought this was a far fetched possibility. Sounds like Orals did not go well for the petitioners.
In a few years, when state after state reredistricts whenever there is a change of hands in the state house, the US House will change hands since the party divide in this county is pretty narrow (since I believe the 15 seat edge the GOP have will sigificantly deminish after 2006, if not turn into a deficit). Maybe the unintended consequence of this will be de facto term limits, or maybe the Congress will turn into California's legislature, where there is barely any institutional memory and choas abounds. Maybe then congress will get off their duffs and redistrict themselves in a fair fashion...or they will just protect themselves as much as possible.
As things stand, every 10 years, candidates pick their voters, instead of every two years the voters pick their representative, as the constitution mandates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment