(From the Conlawprofs Listserv)
"Gerrymandering," from Elbridge Gerry, one of the Founding Fathers, who, for political advantage drew an election district resembling a salamander; hence 'Gerrymander.'
Under the Constitution we have proportional representation that provides one Member of Congress for every so many people. Following the decennial census, also constitutionally mandated, the voting district lines have to be redrawn every decade. The process is called 'redistricting.'
Redistricting is one of the main ways we play party and racial politics.
Previously, before Reynolds v. Sims, the issue of unbalanced districts was deemed too much of a 'political thicket,' hence a 'political question' and non-justiciable. After justiciability was established came "One person, one vote," Baker v. Carr. Check those cites, I'm blawging from memory and probably have 'em bassackwards.
After this, early 'Sixties, the redistricting game was on in earnest. Now we use computers that assemble and re-assemble voting districts on a block-by-block, house-by-house basis according to householder demographics (party, race, ethnicity, gender, age, etc.), in a way that makes Mr. Gerry, who counted voters by hand, look like a piker. Of course he had fewer voters, was at least as effective, and no amateur.
***
That [below] was a very helpful take on understanding Vieth; many thanks for the contribution.
Bob Sheridan
sfls
-----Original Message-----
From: Chambers Jr, Henry L.
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:46 AM
Subject: RE: Vieth: Nice Test Case for Tushnet/Levinson
Marty Lederman wrote:
>>> Sandy appears to argue that any partisan gerrymandering violates the Guarantee Clause. Perhaps. The Justices, however (all nine of them) appear to think that partisan decisions, as such, are not constitutionally problematic per se, but that "severe" or "excessive" use of partisan considerations is unconstitutional. I've never quite understood this distinction.<<<
***
I think the Justices' position can be likened to how referees call basketball games.
Bear with me.
There is a lot of physical contact in basketball games that technically violates the rules of basketball but is not deemed foulworthy, in part because it does not harm the flow of the game.
However, when contact interferes with the proper flow of the basketball game, e.g., when it is severe or excessive, it is deemed foulworthy.
Presumably, the justices feel the same way about partisan gerrymandering. A fair amount of partisan gerrymandering does not harm the proper flow of democracy.
However, excessive and severe partisan gerrymandering does harm the proper flow of democracy.
Of course, Sandy (and many others) may believe that any partisan gerrymandering harms the proper flow of democracy.
I am not sure I agree, but I do concede that it is easier to administer a ban on partisan gerrymandering than a ban on excessive partisan gerrymandering.
-Hank Chambers _______________________________________________
Comments