SCOTUS rejects NC redistricting

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The long saga of NC redistricting is finally resolved, just in time to start getting ready for the next round of redistricting. Justice Thomas joined the liberals in a 5-3 decision, upholding the lower court's ruling that both districts in question were designed for primarily racial reasons, and that the state was unable to present a sufficiently compelling reason to justify this.

Compared to a previous battle over the same district in 2001, the cynical court follower might read today's opinions as such:

Liberals = This case is entirely different from last time, so we're going to vote against the state now, even though we backed the state then.
Conservatives = These cases are the same, but even though we rejected the state's argument back then, we lost, and now we feel beholden to apply previous precedent, even if we disagree with it.
Thomas = These cases are the same, but to hell with precedent. We were wrong in 2001, and I'm glad we're fixing it.

Here's the opinion, for those with time to wade through it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf

My immediate hot take: This opinion illustrates how hard it is for states to redistrict for partisan reasons (allowed) without crossing the line into racial reasons (disallowed). I therefore still believe, as I already did, that the long-term solution is for all states to move to non-partisan redistricting boards.

 

[zeke4ahs]

The long saga of NC redistricting is finally resolved, just in time to start getting ready for the next round of redistricting. Justice Thomas joined the liberals in a 5-3 decision, upholding the lower court's ruling that both districts in question were designed for primarily racial reasons, and that the state was unable to present a sufficiently compelling reason to justify this.

Compared to a previous battle over the same district in 2001, the cynical court follower might read today's opinions as such:

Liberals = This case is entirely different from last time, so we're going to vote against the state now, even though we backed the state then.
Conservatives = These cases are the same, but even though we rejected the state's argument back then, we lost, and now we feel beholden to apply previous precedent, even if we disagree with it.
Thomas = These cases are the same, but to hell with precedent. We were wrong in 2001, and I'm glad we're fixing it.

Here's the opinion, for those with time to wade through it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf

My immediate hot take: This opinion illustrates how hard it is for states to redistrict for partisan reasons (allowed) without crossing the line into racial reasons (disallowed). I therefore still believe, as I already did, that the long-term solution is for all states to move to non-partisan redistricting boards.

I'm really pleasantly surprised about Thomas on this one.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm really pleasantly surprised about Thomas on this one.

I rarely give Thomas any credit, since his judicial philosophy is the legal equivalent of a cement block tied around your ankle, but he's the only justice who had the guts to draw a connection between this case and the previous case over the same issue (when the Dems were in charge), and vote the same way both times. He said, the Court got it wrong last time, and now it's fixed. The liberals and conservatives both found reasons to change their votes between the two cases. Thomas stayed consistent.

 

[DrHoops]

This has to be the first time Thomas has sided with the liberals on something as controversial as this.

The long saga of NC redistricting is finally resolved, just in time to start getting ready for the next round of redistricting. Justice Thomas joined the liberals in a 5-3 decision, upholding the lower court's ruling that both districts in question were designed for primarily racial reasons, and that the state was unable to present a sufficiently compelling reason to justify this.

Compared to a previous battle over the same district in 2001, the cynical court follower might read today's opinions as such:

Liberals = This case is entirely different from last time, so we're going to vote against the state now, even though we backed the state then.
Conservatives = These cases are the same, but even though we rejected the state's argument back then, we lost, and now we feel beholden to apply previous precedent, even if we disagree with it.
Thomas = These cases are the same, but to hell with precedent. We were wrong in 2001, and I'm glad we're fixing it.

Here's the opinion, for those with time to wade through it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf

My immediate hot take: This opinion illustrates how hard it is for states to redistrict for partisan reasons (allowed) without crossing the line into racial reasons (disallowed). I therefore still believe, as I already did, that the long-term solution is for all states to move to non-partisan redistricting boards.

 

[Noodle]

There was also a huge patent decision by SCOTUS yesterday. Tyler and Marshall Texas are going to be decimated by the Court's venue decision. Patent infringement suits may now be filed only where the defendant is incorporated, or where defendant has a regular and established place of business and has committed infringing acts.

Last year 30% of all patent infringement suits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Tyler and Marshall grew to support all the patent litigation (hotels, restaurants, office space, etc.). Now they will get far fewer cease filed there. Probably less than 2-3% will end up there. Of course it will be a big boon for Delaware where so many companies are incorporated and they have judges highly experienced in handling patent litigation.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/supreme-court-ends-texas-grip-patent-cases

 

[Standard Issue]

There was also a huge patent decision by SCOTUS yesterday. Tyler and Marshall Texas are going to be decimated by the Court's venue decision. Patent infringement suits may now be filed only where the defendant is incorporated, or where defendant has a regular and established place of business and has committed infringing acts.

Last year 30% of all patent infringement suits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Tyler and Marshall grew to support all the patent litigation (hotels, restaurants, office space, etc.). Now they will get far fewer cease filed there. Probably less than 2-3% will end up there. Of course it will be a big boon for Delaware where so many companies are incorporated and they have judges highly experienced in handling patent litigation.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/supreme-court-ends-texas-grip-patent-cases

I'm sure not all the suits filed were frivolous but when 30% of all infringement suits are filed there it does give one pause. It looks like a local speed trap on a grand scale.

 

[Noodle]

I'm sure not all the suits filed were frivolous but when 30% of all infringement suits are filed there it does give one pause. It looks like a local speed trap on a grand scale.

That's not a bad analogy. Basically the court has a very pro-patent owner set of rules, it's hard to get summary judgment, and everything's bigger in Texas including jury verdicts in patent cases.

 

[37Hoosier]

The long saga of NC redistricting is finally resolved, just in time to start getting ready for the next round of redistricting. Justice Thomas joined the liberals in a 5-3 decision, upholding the lower court's ruling that both districts in question were designed for primarily racial reasons, and that the state was unable to present a sufficiently compelling reason to justify this.

Compared to a previous battle over the same district in 2001, the cynical court follower might read today's opinions as such:

Liberals = This case is entirely different from last time, so we're going to vote against the state now, even though we backed the state then.
Conservatives = These cases are the same, but even though we rejected the state's argument back then, we lost, and now we feel beholden to apply previous precedent, even if we disagree with it.
Thomas = These cases are the same, but to hell with precedent. We were wrong in 2001, and I'm glad we're fixing it.

Here's the opinion, for those with time to wade through it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf

My immediate hot take: This opinion illustrates how hard it is for states to redistrict for partisan reasons (allowed) without crossing the line into racial reasons (disallowed). I therefore still believe, as I already did, that the long-term solution is for all states to move to non-partisan redistricting boards.

I wish I could remember what international organization it was that monitors voting rights, democratic institutions, government structure etc, but that think tank ranked NC right in there with Libya and some other regimes as being most oppressive. In fact, they didn't regard NC as a "democracy" at all and removed NC from the list of democratic governments.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I wish I could remember what international organization it was that monitors voting rights, democratic institutions, government structure etc, but that think tank ranked NC right in there with Libya and some other regimes as being most oppressive. In fact, they didn't regard NC as a "democracy" at all and removed NC from the list of democratic governments.

It wasn't. It's an academic project that quantifies certain electoral characteristics. It's called the Electoral Integrity Project, and several U.S. states score very poorly, but there are serious methodological problems with how they come up with a composite score. Plus, NC isn't even the lowest state in their ranking. The story spread because one of the professors who developed the coding for the project was from NC and wrote an op-ed in a Charlotte paper, and since the state was already in the news, it went viral.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I therefore still believe, as I already did, that the long-term solution is for all states to move to non-partisan redistricting boards.

Elections matter, and elections should matter. Many states are already neutering their legislatures and the legislative process with ill-advised voter initiatives for constitutional amendments, various "non-partisan" boards and commissions, tax limitations, spending limitations, and earmarked general fund revenue. We have legislatures for many good reasons. Taking away more legislative authority is not good unless you want a bunch of incompetent boobs running for those positions.

 

[37Hoosier]

It wasn't. It's an academic project that quantifies certain electoral characteristics. It's called the Electoral Integrity Project, and several U.S. states score very poorly, but there are serious methodological problems with how they come up with a composite score. Plus, NC isn't even the lowest state in their ranking. The story spread because one of the professors who developed the coding for the project was from NC and wrote an op-ed in a Charlotte paper, and since the state was already in the news, it went viral.

Thanks. I could not remember where I saw it.

 

[Ladoga]

That's not a bad analogy. Basically the court has a very pro-patent owner set of rules, it's hard to get summary judgment, and everything's bigger in Texas including jury verdicts in patent cases.

Like Madison County, Illinois on extreme tort cases? There is an annual publication by the American Tort Reform Association called "Judicial Hellholes" that details some bad places to be a tort defendant.

EDIT to add link
http://www.judicialhellholes.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JudicialHellholes-2016.pdf

 

[UncleMark]

Taking away more legislative authority is not good unless you want a bunch of incompetent boobs running for those positions.

Too late.

 

[hootch1]

No more outside skating rinks in east Texas?