Good article, but it needs to include a discussion of how illegal immigration increased the number of seats a state gets in the House of Representatives.
Maybe the partisan gerrymander is Constitutional, maybe it isn't. What one would think, however, is that to a free people it should be odious. It's odious in Texas, it's odious in California. But how do we get to where we should be in this toxic environment?
And it's odious when it's racist. Democrats have been using racism to give themselves an advantage; finally, it caught up with them. And I am indignant at the assumption that Whites won't vote for blacks. Whites won't vote for candidates who have anti-White agenda, of course, but are the candidates so weak that they must rely on gerrymandering by race to win? Then get better candidates.
Agreed. Get better candidates and the issue of racism becomes moot.
Wesley Hunt, a black representative, was elected from a district in Houston, TX that is 61% white. I have no doubt that there are white individuals in the US that would not vote for a black man, even one as smart and dedicated as Mr. Hunt, but I am equally sure that there are black individuals who would not vote for a white man. But in the big picture, most people these days vote for an individual, not a race. Look at our state and federal leaders--there are men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, transexuals,...even Socialists. Show me ANY country in the world that has this kind of diversity in its political leadership.
I'm not naive; I am aware that some racism is still alive in our country--on all sides of the color/religion spectrum. But as a 70-year-old, I have seen our citizenry come a very long way toward seeing character over skin color. A talking head on TV recently said, "I see character, I don't see color," and she has been abused online. But I know what she was trying to say--that a person's color does not influence her appreciation of individuals; their character does. And I agree.
So according to Justice Kagan, it is very reasonable to assume that all black people vote Democrat. Then if you’re black and dare to vote different in a “black” district your vote is just as lost as a black vote for Democrats in a “white” district (assuming that somehow all whites vote for Republicans, which is just not true!). But of course, in the immortal and deeply racist words of Joe Biden, “If you don’t vote Democrat, you ain’t black enough!”.
According to the leftist Justices, who unlike the non-leftist ones always vote as a block on any issue with a political connotation, 60 years after the voting Rights Act, the South is just as racist as ever and black voters need to be protected in perpetuity.
To take the vision of the leftist Justices to its logical end, all minorities in the US should get a number of districts proportional to their percentage in the population, and each such district would vote exclusively for a representative of that particular minority, with a clearly designated political beneficiary (the Democrats, obviously). This dystopic vision is exactly how Lebanon is constructed. Expect endless civil war as a result.
Why a simplistic overlay of a state with a grid that encompasses population due to a district in a state would not work is beyond me. Gerrymandering is bad fundamentally, regardless of purpose or tactic. If a city winds up partitioned as a result of a grid overlay, so what? It is a fair process. Drawing lines based on anything but population in a manner absent any preconceived outcome is correct.
The author says that partisan gerrymandering shouldn't be constitutional, but the court saw correctly that the Constitution doesn't specify how to draw "fair" voting districts. You would need a Constitutional amendment that describes how to draw voting districts in objective criteria - that they must be contiguous and compact, they must keep municipalities intact to the extent possible, etc. Given our age of big data and AI, even with a set of rules like that, the possibilities for partisan mischief are endless.
Your recommendation seems simplistic. As described in the article, the sectioning of a city predominated by black Democratic supporters to connect each section to a white rural area dominated by Republican voters - with the overall result being Republican-dominated districts in every case - could be accomplished with equal populations in each of the new districts.
Population as the lone criterion doesn't preclude gerrymandering. What additional criteria would you invite AI to employ?
I know it's simplistic but it should be ideally be based only on population numbers and natural topography. Any time you add additional factors, you can't stop and we wind up with the ridiculous process we have now. (I do know this will never change).
Kathlene, you just negated your own argument when you added to it "natural topography". There are many other reasonable constraints that one could add that would change voting boundaries. There lies the heart of the issue.
Ironically, Justice Kagan's hypothetical of carving up black voters into multiple districts is precisely what Virginia just did with its gerrymander. Virginia divided the northern Virginia DC suburbs into multiple districts, including the infamous "lobstermander."
One note to think about: By using race and other standards to create these profoundly disparate districts, the Democrats have guaranteed a level of bias that skews towards the fringe and thus the Democrats of today. Once they lose this need to satisfy the fringe, they will have to moderate their stances and maybe they will reflect the middle, and appeal to their now forgotten middle class voters.
Thoughtful analysis for sure but I think it stopped too quickly at the end. More needs to be said (and perhaps done) about partisanship gerrymandering. It seems to easy if you have control. That said - what is a more reasonable way to divide things up ? Neither seem fair to me
Thanks for a thoughtful and informative analysis. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a bit surprised to see no engagement with the "limiting principle" being applied by the majority and the minority. The limiting principle of the majority is clear. But what is the limiting principle when your argument is, as Kagan writes: "deliberately dividing up voters by race and drawing majority-minority districts is critical in some contexts to overcoming this country’s history of racial discrimination." Where does that end? We know the answer: it ends never.
He concludes with "That's not democracy, and it should not be Constitutional."
I think I agree. But what exactly is "that"? Should state legislatures be restricted in their gerrymandering? How exactly? And on what Constitutional basis?
Hopefully this results in better representation by making the candidates campaign for votes and work for their constituents rather than sailing in because they’re the right skin color.
Jed writes that partisan gerrymandering is "not democracy" and therefore "shouldn't be constitutional." This sleight of hand is not the same as "it isn't constitutional". This would require a germane and specific reference to the part of the constitution it violates. Due to the humility of the founders, not every policy that might be desirable falls within the scope of the constitution.
Good article, but it needs to include a discussion of how illegal immigration increased the number of seats a state gets in the House of Representatives.
Maybe the partisan gerrymander is Constitutional, maybe it isn't. What one would think, however, is that to a free people it should be odious. It's odious in Texas, it's odious in California. But how do we get to where we should be in this toxic environment?
And it's odious when it's racist. Democrats have been using racism to give themselves an advantage; finally, it caught up with them. And I am indignant at the assumption that Whites won't vote for blacks. Whites won't vote for candidates who have anti-White agenda, of course, but are the candidates so weak that they must rely on gerrymandering by race to win? Then get better candidates.
Agreed. Get better candidates and the issue of racism becomes moot.
Wesley Hunt, a black representative, was elected from a district in Houston, TX that is 61% white. I have no doubt that there are white individuals in the US that would not vote for a black man, even one as smart and dedicated as Mr. Hunt, but I am equally sure that there are black individuals who would not vote for a white man. But in the big picture, most people these days vote for an individual, not a race. Look at our state and federal leaders--there are men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, transexuals,...even Socialists. Show me ANY country in the world that has this kind of diversity in its political leadership.
I'm not naive; I am aware that some racism is still alive in our country--on all sides of the color/religion spectrum. But as a 70-year-old, I have seen our citizenry come a very long way toward seeing character over skin color. A talking head on TV recently said, "I see character, I don't see color," and she has been abused online. But I know what she was trying to say--that a person's color does not influence her appreciation of individuals; their character does. And I agree.
Well said.
So according to Justice Kagan, it is very reasonable to assume that all black people vote Democrat. Then if you’re black and dare to vote different in a “black” district your vote is just as lost as a black vote for Democrats in a “white” district (assuming that somehow all whites vote for Republicans, which is just not true!). But of course, in the immortal and deeply racist words of Joe Biden, “If you don’t vote Democrat, you ain’t black enough!”.
According to the leftist Justices, who unlike the non-leftist ones always vote as a block on any issue with a political connotation, 60 years after the voting Rights Act, the South is just as racist as ever and black voters need to be protected in perpetuity.
To take the vision of the leftist Justices to its logical end, all minorities in the US should get a number of districts proportional to their percentage in the population, and each such district would vote exclusively for a representative of that particular minority, with a clearly designated political beneficiary (the Democrats, obviously). This dystopic vision is exactly how Lebanon is constructed. Expect endless civil war as a result.
Excellent
Why a simplistic overlay of a state with a grid that encompasses population due to a district in a state would not work is beyond me. Gerrymandering is bad fundamentally, regardless of purpose or tactic. If a city winds up partitioned as a result of a grid overlay, so what? It is a fair process. Drawing lines based on anything but population in a manner absent any preconceived outcome is correct.
The author says that partisan gerrymandering shouldn't be constitutional, but the court saw correctly that the Constitution doesn't specify how to draw "fair" voting districts. You would need a Constitutional amendment that describes how to draw voting districts in objective criteria - that they must be contiguous and compact, they must keep municipalities intact to the extent possible, etc. Given our age of big data and AI, even with a set of rules like that, the possibilities for partisan mischief are endless.
Gerrymandering is passe. Good job for AI. Just assign districts by population.
Your recommendation seems simplistic. As described in the article, the sectioning of a city predominated by black Democratic supporters to connect each section to a white rural area dominated by Republican voters - with the overall result being Republican-dominated districts in every case - could be accomplished with equal populations in each of the new districts.
Population as the lone criterion doesn't preclude gerrymandering. What additional criteria would you invite AI to employ?
I know it's simplistic but it should be ideally be based only on population numbers and natural topography. Any time you add additional factors, you can't stop and we wind up with the ridiculous process we have now. (I do know this will never change).
Kathlene, you just negated your own argument when you added to it "natural topography". There are many other reasonable constraints that one could add that would change voting boundaries. There lies the heart of the issue.
But that's where AI comes into effect. It could simplify the complexity of drawing boundaries.
Oh yes!! AI.
Now tell me how wonderfully “neutral” that will be.
And I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge (cheap).
LOL
AI is just a tool.
Ironically, Justice Kagan's hypothetical of carving up black voters into multiple districts is precisely what Virginia just did with its gerrymander. Virginia divided the northern Virginia DC suburbs into multiple districts, including the infamous "lobstermander."
Jed is one of the best authors here. Regardless of his personal viewpoint, he brings a fair analysis. Ben Shapiro level intelligence.
I completely agree with the author.
One note to think about: By using race and other standards to create these profoundly disparate districts, the Democrats have guaranteed a level of bias that skews towards the fringe and thus the Democrats of today. Once they lose this need to satisfy the fringe, they will have to moderate their stances and maybe they will reflect the middle, and appeal to their now forgotten middle class voters.
Good point.
Thoughtful analysis for sure but I think it stopped too quickly at the end. More needs to be said (and perhaps done) about partisanship gerrymandering. It seems to easy if you have control. That said - what is a more reasonable way to divide things up ? Neither seem fair to me
Thanks for a thoughtful and informative analysis. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a bit surprised to see no engagement with the "limiting principle" being applied by the majority and the minority. The limiting principle of the majority is clear. But what is the limiting principle when your argument is, as Kagan writes: "deliberately dividing up voters by race and drawing majority-minority districts is critical in some contexts to overcoming this country’s history of racial discrimination." Where does that end? We know the answer: it ends never.
He concludes with "That's not democracy, and it should not be Constitutional."
I think I agree. But what exactly is "that"? Should state legislatures be restricted in their gerrymandering? How exactly? And on what Constitutional basis?
There's a basic flaw in the Constitution here.
Hopefully this results in better representation by making the candidates campaign for votes and work for their constituents rather than sailing in because they’re the right skin color.
This is going to devastate the black representation on Capital Hill. Instead, we will get numerous Tim Scott clones. He is the black senator from SC.
This actually is what is needed. Tim Scott is not a firebrand. He has his issues, but they are not race-baiting racial resentment issues.
If black politicians wish to succeed, they will need to appeal to white AND black AND asian AND whatever. In other words, represent all voters.
We are also going to see the end of the Jasmine Crockett clowns. Race-baiting will not longer work.
It's all good.
Great article. Now how to get SCOTUS to stop gerrymandering for partisanship or parties, as they did for racial preferences.
Gerrymandering for partisanship is legal.
Jed writes that partisan gerrymandering is "not democracy" and therefore "shouldn't be constitutional." This sleight of hand is not the same as "it isn't constitutional". This would require a germane and specific reference to the part of the constitution it violates. Due to the humility of the founders, not every policy that might be desirable falls within the scope of the constitution.