I will leave the doctrinal heavy lifting to those with greater expertise. But I'm in the unusual position of thinking that the gerrymandering issue was a close case. Both sides had some strong arguments. Of course, pretty much everyone else seems to think it was a slam dunk (differing only on which side they think it was a slam dunk for).
This not only puts me in the unusual (for me) situation of being a moderate, but also in the even more unusual situation of being a moderate on an issue where almost everyone else is far more extreme.
On a slightly more serious note, this is NOT the end of federal court litigation over gerrymandering. The majority opinion specifically indicated that racial gerrymandering is still unconstitutional. Given the close connection between political preferences and race (especially, but not exclusively, in the South), there is plenty of room to litigate whether any given gerrymander is political, racial, or some combination of both.
And, of course, there will be further litigation under various state constitutions
I am really shocked every time I hear about this. In Germany it's not a big problem, because mainly there is a proportional representation.
I see, that with changing population, there have to be changes in the district boundaries, but aren't there rules for that?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit