Moore v Harper

[cosmickid]

Obviously a slanted piece, but this provides a good overview of the case.

The Supreme Court’s Most Conservative Justices Got Outplayed on Wednesday

Great lawyering—and, surprisingly, Amy Coney Barrett—debunked a legal theory designed to subvert democracy.

slate.com

Here is some perspective on the attempts by the Carolina GOP to maintain power in the wake of shifting demographics in the state thru extreme gerrymandering. Hey if you can't champion issues that people support and you don't like sharing power just eliminate 4 of the current Dem districts and effectively deny those Dem leaning voters a voice... Worked well enough in the Indiana General Assembly...

A sane US Supreme Court ruling on election oversight won’t end Carolina crazy | Opinion

NC’s legislature is about to get a green light from the state Supreme Court

www.yahoo.com

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

because gerrymandering the shit out of voting districts to give yourself an advantage is an awesome way to make sure voters feel that their voice is heard.

Disenfranchising voters everywhere...the republican way.

Both parties have gerrymandered for our entire history. Are you incapable of criticizing Democrats for doing the same? Seems so.

 

[NPT]

Both parties have gerrymandered for our entire history. Are you incapable of criticizing Democrats for doing the same? Seems so.

It's like this with Hickory.... if the Rs gerrymander in 19 states and the Ds do in 18 states just forget that that Ds do it because the Rs do it more.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It's like this with Hickory.... if the Rs gerrymander in 19 states and the Ds do in 18 states just forget that that Ds do it because the Rs do it more.

And they do it worser, donchyaknow

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It's like this with Hickory.... if the Rs gerrymander in 19 states and the Ds do in 18 states just forget that that Ds do it because the Rs do it more.

Hickory is on my hyper-partisan list. I have people on both sides on the list, but basically it consists of those that our incapable of ever criticizing their own party and their posts can be boiled down to "my party good, other party bad" on every single issue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here is some perspective on the attempts by the Carolina GOP to maintain power in the wake of shifting demographics in the state thru extreme gerrymandering. Hey if you can't champion issues that people support and you don't like sharing power just eliminate 4 of the current Dem districts and effectively deny those Dem leaning voters a voice... Worked well enough in the Indiana General Assembly...

A sane US Supreme Court ruling on election oversight won’t end Carolina crazy | Opinion

NC’s legislature is about to get a green light from the state Supreme Court

www.yahoo.com

I wish somebody would make a cogent and good argument why gerrymandering is such a constitutional problem that the courts should fix. I think the NC opinion about that is full of holes.

Gerrymandering is only a thing because we have become so strident, stubborn, and hateful in our politics that we can’t ever see our way clear to agree with the opposite party or disagree with our own. That’s crazy.

Im old enough to remember the supposedly smart and competent leftists thought Senima and Manchin were threatening democracy and congress because they disagreed with party leadership. These are the same people who get their panties in a wad over gerrymandering. Gerrymandering wouldn’t matter as much if we were less obstinate.

 

[Stuffshot]

I wish somebody would make a cogent and good argument why gerrymandering is such a constitutional problem that the courts should fix. I think the NC opinion about that is full of holes.

Gerrymandering is only a thing because we have become so strident, stubborn, and hateful in our politics that we can’t ever see our way clear to agree with the opposite party or disagree with our own. That’s crazy.

Im old enough to remember the supposedly smart and competent leftists thought Senima and Manchin were threatening democracy and congress because they disagreed with party leadership. These are the same people who get their panties in a wad over gerrymandering. Gerrymandering wouldn’t matter as much if we were less obstinate.

One of the things Manchin is known for is that he and his family own at least one giant coal brokerage business earning him a fortune.

Another thing Manchin is known for is that he routinely opposes climate legislation and other proposals that might negatively affect the profitability of his coal businesses.

Maybe you think it's fair to characterize that as just merely disagreeing with party leadership, but Good Ol' Joe has shown there are obvious other reasons to dislike his act.

 

[Stuffshot]

Here is some perspective on the attempts by the Carolina GOP to maintain power in the wake of shifting demographics in the state thru extreme gerrymandering. Hey if you can't champion issues that people support and you don't like sharing power just eliminate 4 of the current Dem districts and effectively deny those Dem leaning voters a voice... Worked well enough in the Indiana General Assembly...

A sane US Supreme Court ruling on election oversight won’t end Carolina crazy | Opinion

NC’s legislature is about to get a green light from the state Supreme Court

www.yahoo.com

I read through the 208-page transcript of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. I was surprised at all the discussion by the justices and attorneys about the extent to which the Elections Clause permits state constitutions to authorize courts to rule on the legality of actions taken by state legislatures affecting elections.

Congress has already approved most all of those provisions, because virtually all states applying for admission to the union pre-submitted their proposed constitutions to Congress for approval before Congress approved their admission.

This means Congress (despite the Elections Clause) had already approved the content of those state constitutions that authorized courts to rule on the legality of state election laws passed by their respective legislatures.

It also means that all those state governments were also in agreement with those same constitutional provisions for judicial review of state election laws, when they submitted them to Congress for approval.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I read through the 208-page transcript of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. I was surprised at all the discussion by the justices and attorneys about the extent to which the Elections Clause permits state constitutions to authorize courts to rule on the legality of actions taken by state legislatures affecting elections.

Congress has already approved most all of those provisions, because virtually all states applying for admission to the union pre-submitted their proposed constitutions to Congress for approval before Congress approved their admission.

This means Congress (despite the Elections Clause) had already approved the content of those state constitutions that authorized courts to rule on the legality of state election laws passed by their respective legislatures.

It also means that all those state governments were also in agreement with those same constitutional provisions for judicial review of state election laws, when they submitted them to Congress for approval.

Here’s the problem. When the court engages in judicial review of a lagislative act, its review cannot include changing the legislation no matter how unreasonable the legislature might be. The scope of judicial review is limited to making sure the legislature used the proper process.

The obvious exception to that principle is if the state legislation violates the federal or state constitution. To make that determination, SCOTUS must decide whether being a Democrat or Republican deserves the same protection in terms of gerrymandering as being a racial minority. I have ny doubts about that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Here’s the problem. When the court engages in judicial review of a lagislative act, its review cannot include changing the legislation no matter how unreasonable the legislature might be. The scope of judicial review is limited to making sure the legislature used the proper process.

The obvious exception to that principle is if the state legislation violates the federal or state constitution. To make that determination, SCOTUS must decide whether being a Democrat or Republican deserves the same protection in terms of gerrymandering as being a racial minority. I have ny doubts about that.

You have argued gerymandering created no adverse effect on the voter. If true, why does the court need to protect anyone from it?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You have argued gerymandering created no adverse effect on the voter. If true, why does the court need to protect anyone from it?

I never said gerrymandering created no adverse affect.

I said drawing boundaries, whether they define county commissioner districts, or congressional districts, is an entirely legislative function and the judicial branch has no authority, absent constitutional issues like racial suppression.

Any adverse affect should be decided by voters, not courts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I never said gerrymandering created no adverse affect.

I said drawing boundaries, whether they define county commissioner districts, or congressional districts, is an entirely legislative function and the judicial branch has no authority, absent constitutional issues like racial suppression.

Any adverse affect should be decided by voters, not courts.

No, you specifically said dilution of vote is not a problem, you live in a D district and suffer no harm.

Of course with non partisan maps there will be D and R districts. There is no way around it. But taking a 10 congressional district state that votes 46-54 and making it 2-8 purposefully is not the same thing. It is your state legislators, the people paid with everyone's taxes, taking your tax money and purposely screwing your vote (if you are in the minority).

So let us legalize gerrymandering but only require the winners to pay taxes since you now admit screwing your vote is a thing.

 

[Stuffshot]

I never said gerrymandering created no adverse affect.

I said drawing boundaries, whether they define county commissioner districts, or congressional districts, is an entirely legislative function and the judicial branch has no authority, absent constitutional issues like racial suppression.

Any adverse affect should be decided by voters, not courts.

However, your suggestion that "any adverse affect should be decided by voters, not courts" also seems to contradict the Elections Clause to the same extent (if at all), so it does not necessarily resolve the issue either.

The proponents of the Elections Clause are claiming that absolutely nobody except a legislature can decide how to conduct those elections. Their absolutist position leaves no room to have these decisions made by referendums as you suggest.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

However, your suggestion that "any adverse affect should be decided by voters, not courts" also seems to contradict the Elections Clause to the same extent (if at all), so it does not necessarily resolve the issue either.

The proponents of the Elections Clause are claiming that absolutely nobody except a legislature can decide how to conduct those elections. Their absolutist position leaves no room to have these decisions made by referendums as you suggest.

First, I don’t agree that the courts have lack jurisdiction to conduct judicial review. I said the scope of judicial review is limited along the lines I described.

Second, my reference to voters has to do with voters choosing their legislative representatives, not taking the issue away from the legislature with a referendum.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, you specifically said dilution of vote is not a problem, you live in a D district and suffer no harm.

Of course with non partisan maps there will be D and R districts. There is no way around it. But taking a 10 congressional district state that votes 46-54 and making it 2-8 purposefully is not the same thing. It is your state legislators, the people paid with everyone's taxes, taking your tax money and purposely screwing your vote (if you are in the minority).

So let us legalize gerrymandering but only require the winners to pay taxes since you now admit screwing your vote is a thing.

I said my vote being diluted because I live in an overwhelmingly democratic district is not the kind of harm a court can or should ever address. You are trying to pick an irrelevant nit.

Assuming your second paragraph could be accurate while adhering to the roughly equal population mandate, that goes under the “elections have consequences “ file. I don’t see a way for a court, using the judicial process, can or should draw a map to satisfy political equality or political apportionment.

Legislative bodies already screw minorities. In Colorado, rural folks get screwed with significantly more urban voters in a number of ways. That’s life.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I said my vote being diluted because I live in an overwhelmingly democratic district is not the kind of harm a court can or should ever address. You are trying to pick an irrelevant nit.

Assuming your second paragraph could be accurate while adhering to the roughly equal population mandate, that goes under the “elections have consequences “ file. I don’t see a way for a court, using the judicial process, can or should draw a map to satisfy political equality or political apportionment.

Legislative bodies already screw minorities. In Colorado, rural folks get screwed with significantly more urban voters in a number of ways. That’s life.

What %of CO is rural and what percentage of the legislature represents rural? In the nation as a whole, rural is over represented.

In a representative government the government should try to match the people.

Let me ask you this, if Trump were to face trial, would it be fair if all jurors and alternates we're staunch Democrats? I would argue no based on the idea that a jury of peers should be representative of the people as a whole. Same idea.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In a representative government the government should try to match the people.

Why?

How is matching people more important than matching the unique interests of different areas?

 

[TMFT]

Why?

How is matching people more important than matching the unique interests of different areas?

Philosophically, the interests of the urban should include the interests of the rural (and vice versa) because we're an interconnected society and we do best when efficient choices are made that maximize the collective interest.

I'd also answer your question that matching people is more important than matching areas because the government is made up of the people and not regions.

A counter question would be what is the net benefit of a system that lets a minority position have majority control of the government? Sure, the minority is having their interests met, presumably at the expense of the majority's interest because we unfortunately don't live in that world where we truly try to create a rising tide to lift all boats. And please note that this is not a complaint about minority representation as a check on the majority, it's a complaint that a minority in fact could rule as a majority in practice. Seems both anti-democratic and anti-republican (small letters for both).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'd also answer your question that matching people is more important than matching areas because the government is made up of the people and not regions.

The United States means what the name implies. We are a country of states/regions. An essential feature of our republic is federalism and that we do recognize regions. The states created the federal government. The federal government is made up of regional interests. The states hold the authority to change the federal government. It is important that we maintain and support healthy and viable state governments. Part of that is each state selecting its own representatives to congress and not allowing remote population centers control the whole shebang.

 

[TMFT]

The United States means what the name implies. We are a country of states/regions. An essential feature of our republic is federalism and that we do recognize regions. The states created the federal government. The federal government is made up of regional interests. The states hold the authority to change the federal government. It is important that we maintain and support healthy and viable state governments. Part of that is each state selecting its own representatives to congress and not allowing remote population centers control the whole shebang.

No one is talking about making a national popular vote proportional representative government.

We're literally talking about the representation within each state.

You still haven't explained the virtue of a minority being over represented to the point of being able to act as a de facto majority.

 

[Stuffshot]

First, I don’t agree that the courts have lack jurisdiction to conduct judicial review. I said the scope of judicial review is limited along the lines I described.

Second, my reference to voters has to do with voters choosing their legislative representatives, not taking the issue away from the legislature with a referendum.

Another interesting thought derives from the Supreme Court justices' numerous questions (during the argument of Moore v. Harper) about the state Constitution of North Carolina (the state at issue in Moore vs Harper and one of the original 13).

Why did they care?

Keep in mind that: (1) most all of the next 37 states to be admitted to the Union were required to pre-submit their proposed state constitutions to Congress before Congress voted to admit them, and (2) Article IV of the Constitution requires all states (and their citizens) to be treated the same regardless whether one of the original 13 or not.

So, if the Supreme Court rules to invalidate part of NC's state constitution because of the Elections Clause, it is virtually certain this ruling would apply equally to many other state constitutions having similar provisions even though Congress already approved those other state constitutions by "enabling acts" when it admitted those states in the first place!!

This would amount to invalidating part of Congress' roughly 37 enabling acts without any discussion that this is what the Supreme Court is being asked to do or whether it even has the authority.

 

[Stuffshot]

The United States means what the name implies. We are a country of states/regions. An essential feature of our republic is federalism and that we do recognize regions. The states created the federal government. The federal government is made up of regional interests. The states hold the authority to change the federal government. It is important that we maintain and support healthy and viable state governments. Part of that is each state selecting its own representatives to congress and not allowing remote population centers control the whole shebang.

Read Article IV, closely.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Another interesting thought derives from the Supreme Court justices' numerous questions (during the argument of Moore v. Harper) about the state Constitution of North Carolina (the state at issue in Moore vs Harper and one of the original 13).

Why did they care?

Keep in mind that: (1) most all of the next 37 states to be admitted to the Union were required to pre-submit their proposed state constitutions to Congress before Congress voted to admit them, and (2) Article IV of the Constitution requires all states (and their citizens) to be treated the same regardless whether one of the original 13 or not.

So, if the Supreme Court rules to invalidate part of NC's state constitution because of the Elections Clause, it is virtually certain this ruling would apply equally to many other state constitutions having similar provisions even though Congress already approved those other state constitutions by "enabling acts" when it admitted those states in the first place!!

This would amount to invalidating part of Congress' roughly 37 enabling acts without any discussion that this is what the Supreme Court is being asked to do or whether it even has the authority.

I haven’t read the oral argument transcript. . Why would SCOTUS need void part of the NC constitution?

And if so, so what? Other state constitutional provisions have been voided because of conflict with the federal constitution.

 

[Stuffshot]

I haven’t read the oral argument transcript. . Why would SCOTUS need void part of the NC constitution?

And if so, so what? Other state constitutional provisions have been voided because of conflict with the federal constitution.

You dare ask, why would SCOTUS need to do that? Well, gulp, maybe you should read the transcript. The parties and justices say why.

And, it's not just a matter of voiding "other state constitutional provisions" -- it's a matter of issuing a ruling that voids at least part of numerous Congressional enabling acts for 100+ years that already approved these same "other state constitutional provisions" many decades ago with no notice that this is what MAGA and the NC government was seeking in this case.

I thought you MAGA guys and America First honchos wanted to put an end to judicial activism? Oh, you do, of course, except when you think you and your garters benefit.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, gulp, maybe you should read the transcript.

Gimme your version.

 

[Stuffshot]

Gimme your version.

Here's the only version a thinking man needs:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-1271_21o2.pdf

 

[cosmickid]

No one is talking about making a national popular vote proportional representative government.

We're literally talking about the representation within each state.

You still haven't explained the virtue of a minority being over represented to the point of being able to act as a de facto majority.

Which is exactly what has happened in several states including PA, GA, MI and WI. When the majority of voters are Democrat (like in PA) and the over representing rural minority is making laws designed to thwart the will of the majority and maintain the rural minority's hegemony thru Legislative manipulation, that is a problem that epitomizes the minority acting as a de facto majority...

Gimme your version.

Here is Neil Katyal who argued the case with a little bit of his version...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Which is exactly what has happened in several states including PA, GA, MI and WI. When the majority of voters are Democrat (like in PA) and the over representing rural minority is making laws designed to thwart the will of the majority and maintain the rural minority's hegemony thru Legislative manipulation, that is a problem that epitomizes the minority acting as a de facto majority...

Here is Neil Katyal who argued the case with a little bit of his version...

View embedded media

Here is the relevant language from the Colorado Supreme Court I argued and won:

This limitation upon the scope of judicial review of legislative activities is completely consistent with the language of section 407(1)(c). The General Assembly provided a procedure whereby the Commission can seek to enforce compliance by a local government with that body's statutory duty to consider designation following a formal request by the Commission. The role of the courts is not to pass upon the substantive merits of the local government's determination, but rather to ensure that the statutory scheme has been appropriately carried out. (My emphasis).​

​

The point of this quote is the general law in every state. Courts do not have authority to do what the objectors have asked. Drawing boundaries is a legislative act. Period. Full stop. Substitute “state legislature” for “ local government” and the answer is simple. The only way for SCOTUS to rule in favor of the objectors is to determine that political party affiliation deserves constitutional protection. I don’t think that will happen.

BTW, the tactic of coming out without “throat clearing” O’Donnell was so impressed with is common for good lawyers and is how I coached high school mock trial.

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[Marvin the Martian]

View embedded media

Nothing like legalizing blatant cheating. But it is America, cheating is great where our side can do it better than the other

 

[Spartans9312]

Nothing like legalizing blatant cheating. But it is America, cheating is great where our side can do it better than the other

DRA 2020

A free app to create, analyze and share redistricting maps for any state.

davesredistricting.org

I would do something like this. Solid 10-3-1 map. NC-1 would be Biden +0.4 and the most marginal republican (Trump +9) seat is seeing explosive red growth in Brunswick County that offsets stagnant Fayetteville. Also shores up Edwards about 4 more points, then drops Jackson into a Trump +21 district with McHenry. Nickel winds up in a Trump +15 district which wraps around the south and west sides of Raleigh-Durham, and Manning gets split between either a Trump +22 or +13 district.

County splits are minimal and I used the Ohio rule in which all districts must either be contained within a county or include a full county.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Nothing like legalizing blatant cheating. But it is America, cheating is great where our side can do it better than the other

What exactly iis the legal problem with gerrymandering? Are you suggesting the constitution should be interpreted to protect political parties?

 

[UncleMark]

Are states allowed to redraw their districts any time? I thought it was just after the census.

 

[Spartans9312]

Are states allowed to redraw their districts any time? I thought it was just after the census.

I think the congressional map was already required to be redrawn

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Are states allowed to redraw their districts any time? I thought it was just after the census.

They are required to redraw after each census to maintain adherence to the one person, one vote rule, but I don't think there's anything that prevents them from redrawing more than once per decade. But I could be wrong. I'm no expert in this area.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

What exactly iis the legal problem with gerrymandering? Are you suggesting the constitution should be interpreted to protect political parties?

Are you suggesting the Constitution should be interpreted to protect the ruling political party?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Takeaways from Moore v. Harper, the historic Supreme Court arguments on election rules | CNN Politics

Arguments in the Supreme Court’s blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how...

amp.cnn.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper

The case is about democracy, but not in the way critics claim.

www.wsj.com

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

Pubs prefer winning to democracy, realize they aren't going to win nationally on policy, so have played a long game of manipulating minority rule.

it's not that they don't like democracy.. it's that given a choice between losing democratically and winning by manipulating the rules, they'll choose to manipulate every rule they can.

if they were all about fair play and respecting the rights of others, they wouldn't be conservatives.

the main differences between conservatives and liberals, is how you think of and treat others outside your own, and where you draw moral and ethical lines..

 

[TMFT]

Pubs prefer winning to democracy, realize they aren't going to win nationally on policy, so have played a long game of manipulating minority rule.

it's not that they don't like democracy.. it's that given a choice between losing democratically and winning by manipulating the rules, they'll choose to manipulate every rule they can.

if they were all about fair play and respecting the rights of others, they wouldn't be conservatives.

the main differences between conservatives and liberals, is how you think of and treat others outside your own, and where you draw moral and ethical lines..

I’m really mad at you right now for making me do this: I don’t think it’s an R thing.

Ds have drawn some pretty rough maps in their own right, it just so happens that the Rs are doing it in really “well.” Someday and/or somewhere the tides will turn.

I also think coh is in the minority of folks who think that vicious gerrymandering is totally fine because it benefits his side currently. Really leaning into the mindset of “we can use procedural gimmicks to keep winning” is a long term losing strategy and when the dam finally breaks it’ll be ugly.

It’s like my ol Pappy used to say, “If you can’t beat ‘em, cheat ‘em.”

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I’m really mad at you right now for making me do this: I don’t think it’s an R thing.

Ds have drawn some pretty rough maps in their own right, it just so happens that the Rs are doing it in really “well.” Someday and/or somewhere the tides will turn.

I also think coh is in the minority of folks who think that vicious gerrymandering is totally fine because it benefits his side currently. Really leaning into the mindset of “we can use procedural gimmicks to keep winning” is a long term losing strategy and when the dam finally breaks it’ll be ugly.

It’s like my ol Pappy used to say, “If you can’t beat ‘em, cheat ‘em.”

they're using computers which are pretty good at it.

that said, in many states they're going way beyond gerrymandering, and purging Dem voters from voter roles.

that said, there is no way to draw totally "fair" lines, but you could at least try.

once the Pubs started doing it, Dems eventually felt forced to reciprocate, but haven't near to the degree Pubs have.

for a long time i've argued the courts and judges were just as political as the legislatures, which becomes more obvious all the time.

Dems used political judges, but did so to give more rights to the citizenry than the legislatures and populous wanted, and make things more democratic.

Pubs use political judges to take away personal rights, and make things less democratic.

proportional representation based in the popular state vote broken down proportionally would be the fairest way to do it.

doing something the fairest way, has never been a conservative goal.

it's just not who they are, or will ever be.

 

[TMFT]

they're using computers which are pretty good at it.

that said, in many states they're going way beyond gerrymandering, and purging Dem voters from voter roles.

that said, there is no way to draw totally "fair" lines, but you could at least try.

once the Pubs started doing it, Dems eventually felt forced to reciprocate, but haven't near to the degree Pubs have.

for a long time i've argued the courts and judges were just as political as the legislatures, which becomes more obvious all the time.

Dems used political judges, but did so to give more rights to the citizenry than the legislatures and populous wanted, and make things more democratic.

Pubs use political judges to take away personal rights, and make things less democratic.

proportional representation based in the popular state vote broken down proportionally would be the fairest way to do it.

doing something the fairest way, has never been a conservative goal.

it's just not who they are, or will ever be.

I’m all in on proportional representation. I’m also all in on ranked choice voting. The counter argument is that rural voters don’t want to be controlled by city folk. Ignoring, obviously, the converse. Supplemental argument is that city folk know nothing of rural areas. I would say ignoring the converse here too, but if there’s anything the cooler has taught me is if you want answers about urban/gay/minority issues, all the answers are found with rural/straight/whites. I just hope NASA knows about these guys if they end up finding signs of extraterrestrial life; their expertise will be invaluable.

I’m admittedly a Democrat, but also very strongly a democrat. I firmly believe if people believe that representation of the people is truly a positive then the only two reasons to be against reforms are 1) hesitance to change and/or 2) they want their side to win. And note that this applies to people of both parties in various parts of the country that have built in advantages.