re: #206 KGxvi

I’m reading/skimming the decision on partisan gerrymandering, and I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with this point from the majority’s opinion (they ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” outside the Court’s purview):

That said, as Kagan points out in her dissent, there are existing tests that are pretty standard tests that lawyers and courts use all the time to deal with claims of vote dilution.

Lastly, I’ll say this: I don’t necessarily blame the majority for punting; nor do I disagree with the dissent that there are viable tests that can be used. However, gerrymandering can often times be an “eye of the beholder” situation (or to use Justice Potter’s famous line “I know it when I see it”). I think districts should generally be compact and where possible not split counties/cities/neighborhoods. But even with that basic formulation, it’s possible to create maps that favor one party over the other.

Post-script: There is, of course, a political answer to these issues. Register more voters, turn them out at elections, invest in races with good candidates, win seats “you shouldn’t have been able to win”, win the governor’s race in cycles where redistricting will happen

And when Democrats win 200K more votes in Wisconsin but gerrymandering still guarantees Republicans a supermajority in the assembly, then what?