ProfX wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:13 pm
Six votes?
The Danger of the Independent State Legislature Theory
https://www.fairvote.org/the_danger_of_ ... ure_theory
Kavanaugh did not join the original dissent of Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Only indicated the matter should be addressed by the court.
No one really knows where Barrett would vote ... yet.
As for Chief Justice Roberts, [from the above]
Roberts may not be willing to go as far as the North Carolina legislature may wish however:
in his 2019 majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause the Chief Justice wrote, with respect to elections for federal office, “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.” This suggests that Roberts would retain a role for state courts in deciding whether state legislatures do, in fact, follow the law in the context of elections for federal office.
Here’s the complete statement from Rucho.
“ Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply. (We do not understand how the dissent can main- tain that a provision saying that no districting plan “shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party” provides little guidance on the question. See post, at 31, n. 6.) Indeed, numerous other States are restricting partisan considerations in districting through legislation. One way they are doing so is by placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commis- sions. For example, in November 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved constitutional amendments creat- ing multimember commissions that will be responsible in whole or in part for creating and approving district maps for congressional and state legislative districts. See Colo. Const., Art. V, §§44, 46; Mich. Const., Art. IV, §6. Mis- souri is trying a different tack. Voters there overwhelm- ingly approved the creation of a new position—state de- mographer—to draw state legislative district lines. Mo. Const., Art. III, §3.
Other States have mandated at least some of the tradi- tional districting criteria for their mapmakers. Some have outright prohibited partisan favoritism in redistricting. See Fla. Const., Art. III, §20(a) (“No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”); Mo. Const., Art. III, §3 (“Districts shall be designed in a man- ner that achieves both partisan fairness and, secondarily, competitiveness. ‘Partisan fairness’ means that parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legis- lative representation with approximately equal efficiency.”); Iowa Code §42.4(5) (2016) (“No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legis- lator or member of Congress, or other person or group.”); Del. Code Ann., Tit. xxix, §804 (2017) (providing that in determining district boundaries for the state legislature, no district shall “be created so as to unduly favor any person or political party”).
As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections. Clause. The first bill introduced in the 116th Congress would require States to create 15-member independent commissions to draw congressional districts and would establish certain redistricting criteria, including protec- tion for communities of interest, and ban partisan gerry- mandering. H. R. 1, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §§2401, 2411 (2019).
Dozens of other bills have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting. In 2010, H. R. 6250 would have required States to follow standards of compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions in redistricting. It also would have prohibited the establishment of congressional districts “with the major purpose of diluting the voting strength of any person, or group, including any political party,” except when necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H. R. 6250, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (referred to committee).
Another example is the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which was introduced in 2005 and has been reintroduced in every Congress since. That bill would require every State to establish an independent commission to adopt redistricting plans. The bill also set forth criteria for the independent commissions to use, such as compactness, contiguity, and population equality. It would prohibit consideration of voting history, political party affiliation, or incumbent Representative’s residence. H.R. 2642, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (referred to subcommittee).
We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.”
It’s simply a list of all sorts of approaches to the problem. No endorsement, no acceptance, no conclusion.
Of particular note he ends with “ We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.”
Now I suggest you read Chief Justice Roberts blistering dissent in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It’s pretty clear where he’ll be.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_3ea4.pdf