DAILY CALLER: A coalition of Republican voters made a pair of bold requests while asking the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling striking down a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland.
Their case, one of several pending before the justices on this topic, could clear the way for greater judicial scrutiny over redistricting. The Supreme Court has yet to find partisan line-drawing, called gerrymandering, unlawful.
“The practice of partisan gerrymandering — aided in modern times by sophisticated software and the most detailed troves of data imaginable — is at war with [our] system of government,” the Republican motion reads. “It aims to insulate those in power — those whom the public has taken into their trust — from being held to account. Its purpose is to reduce the franchise to a charade — a meaningless exercise, the outcome of which is preordained by computer scientists and political consultants turned cartographers.”
In an aggressive move, the plaintiffs are asking the Court to summarily affirm the lower court, meaning they want the justices to uphold the lower court decision without briefing and oral arguments.
Should the Court decide to take the case, the plaintiffs also asked the justices to schedule their argument on the same day as a related partisan gerrymandering case arising from North Carolina.
Doing so, the plaintiffs wrote, “would ensure a broader spectrum of legal arguments and a more substantial combined factual record upon which to consider the issues presented in the appeals.” The filing notes Justice Stephen Breyer made such a proposal during oral arguments in March. MORE HERE
I’ve never met a gerrymandering that I didn’t like.
And they’ll continue to rig elections when and where they can with no reservations or care for stealing your deplorable voting rights.
They doing the same in Pennsylvania with rural and suburban voting.
A gerrymander ate my congressman. Last time I checked, there were no wheels on my house. But my voice in congress morphed from a conservative Republican into friggin’ Al Green.
How does one define gerrymandering precisely and objectively enough to make outlawing it feasible?