Well, there is nothing really in the Constitution that says courts have authority to intervene in redistricting matters, so calling it an "abdication" is a bit much. I am very much conflicted on the issue. I really would love for courts to set some guidelines on redistricting so they are much more competitive from a partisan standpoint, …
Well, there is nothing really in the Constitution that says courts have authority to intervene in redistricting matters, so calling it an "abdication" is a bit much. I am very much conflicted on the issue. I really would love for courts to set some guidelines on redistricting so they are much more competitive from a partisan standpoint, but the other part of me doesn't believe there is any authority for courts to take that role.
That’s the Originalist interpretation, but lots are things are omitted in the Constitution. Our founders count have perceived the world we live in today, or gerrymandering, for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me to be an equal protection issue. The extreme gerrymandering that the Republicans have done disenfranchises the majority of voters in the state.
The Constitution (the "Guarantee Clause" says it is the responsibility of the United States to guarantee a "republican form of government." The Constitution is silent on whether this is up to the Executive, the Legislature, or the Courts. But the Federal government is specifically charged, by the Constitution, to ensure that states have a "republican form of government." What the heck that means is anyone's guess. But my point is not how that would be interpreted, but that the Constitution explicitly (if very vaguely) gives the Federal Government the power to redress state government issues.
All these comments made me think about how the Federal government intervened to end the laws passed by Southern states during Jim Crow to prevent African Americans from voting; most notably the 1965 Voting Rights Act which outlawed these state laws.
I would think that if a state is blatantly preventing equal representation of voters of different political beliefs, as seems to be happening in Wisconsin, there would be an argument that the federal government should intervene. Which branch of the government should intervene is something I am not sure of.
The first amendment exists and the Court would be well within its power to limit gerrymandering under its purview. What the WI GOP is doing isn’t democracy. This is repeatedly subverting the will of the voters. And the judiciary isn’t holding up its end of the bargain in this system of checks and balances.
That's rather innovative. I'd like to see the argument constructed. Do recall that the First Amendment existed since 1791 -- before poll tax elimination and the rights of women and minorities were assured. No constitutional bright guy here, but the 14 and 19 amendments more typically applied to the idea granting the vote.
I will say about Wisconsin: it's so-called Progressive era failed to establish the citizen initiated referendum. The result of this is that Wisconsin, outside of the courts, has zero chance of having the voters create a non-partisan body devoted to redistricting. Both of those matters are up to the legislature and of course Vos would have zero interest in citizen initiative or the creation of an independent body for apportionment. That said, the Democrats are too concerned with apportioning by community -- the pack part of crack and pack. I'd like to see a mathematical solution to this based on headcounts alone, no excessive consideration for proximity to central place services, or red-lined zip codes.
Well, there is nothing really in the Constitution that says courts have authority to intervene in redistricting matters, so calling it an "abdication" is a bit much. I am very much conflicted on the issue. I really would love for courts to set some guidelines on redistricting so they are much more competitive from a partisan standpoint, but the other part of me doesn't believe there is any authority for courts to take that role.
That’s the Originalist interpretation, but lots are things are omitted in the Constitution. Our founders count have perceived the world we live in today, or gerrymandering, for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me to be an equal protection issue. The extreme gerrymandering that the Republicans have done disenfranchises the majority of voters in the state.
The Constitution (the "Guarantee Clause" says it is the responsibility of the United States to guarantee a "republican form of government." The Constitution is silent on whether this is up to the Executive, the Legislature, or the Courts. But the Federal government is specifically charged, by the Constitution, to ensure that states have a "republican form of government." What the heck that means is anyone's guess. But my point is not how that would be interpreted, but that the Constitution explicitly (if very vaguely) gives the Federal Government the power to redress state government issues.
All these comments made me think about how the Federal government intervened to end the laws passed by Southern states during Jim Crow to prevent African Americans from voting; most notably the 1965 Voting Rights Act which outlawed these state laws.
I would think that if a state is blatantly preventing equal representation of voters of different political beliefs, as seems to be happening in Wisconsin, there would be an argument that the federal government should intervene. Which branch of the government should intervene is something I am not sure of.
The first amendment exists and the Court would be well within its power to limit gerrymandering under its purview. What the WI GOP is doing isn’t democracy. This is repeatedly subverting the will of the voters. And the judiciary isn’t holding up its end of the bargain in this system of checks and balances.
That's rather innovative. I'd like to see the argument constructed. Do recall that the First Amendment existed since 1791 -- before poll tax elimination and the rights of women and minorities were assured. No constitutional bright guy here, but the 14 and 19 amendments more typically applied to the idea granting the vote.
I will say about Wisconsin: it's so-called Progressive era failed to establish the citizen initiated referendum. The result of this is that Wisconsin, outside of the courts, has zero chance of having the voters create a non-partisan body devoted to redistricting. Both of those matters are up to the legislature and of course Vos would have zero interest in citizen initiative or the creation of an independent body for apportionment. That said, the Democrats are too concerned with apportioning by community -- the pack part of crack and pack. I'd like to see a mathematical solution to this based on headcounts alone, no excessive consideration for proximity to central place services, or red-lined zip codes.