<story><title>Supreme Court rules federal courts cannot invalidate partisan gerrymandering [pdf]</title><url>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>blakesterz</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s Roberts writing?&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Except it IS clear what unfairness looks like, and it&amp;#x27;s this.&lt;p&gt;“How much is too much?”&lt;p&gt;This, what they are doing right hear right now, this is too much. I have to assume it&amp;#x27;s obvious to the majority here and they know what they&amp;#x27;re doing.&lt;p&gt;Kagan&amp;#x27;s dissent is great and finishes with this which REALLY resonates with me:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the
law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in
these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the
Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations.
None is more important than free and fair elections. With
respect but deep sadness, I dissent. &amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>bsamuels</author><text>This is actually a fascinating read, despite the disappointing decision.&lt;p&gt;This section really resonates:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;  It is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context. It may mean achieving a greater number of competitive districts by undoing packing and cracking so that supporters of the disadvantaged party have a better shot at electing their preferred
candidates. But it could mean engaging in cracking and packing to
ensure each party its “appropriate” share of “safe” seats. Or perhaps
it should be measured by adherence to “traditional” districting criteria. Deciding among those different visions of fairness poses basic
questions that are political, not legal. There are no legal standards
discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments. And it is
only after determining how to define fairness that one can even begin
to answer the determinative question: “How much is too much?”</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rossdavidh</author><text>I think the decisions&amp;#x27; example is pretty telling.  Does every voter have a right to a competitive election in their district, so that their vote matters at least potentially?  Or does every voter have a right to their political party getting representation at least approximately equal to their share of the electorate?  Those two both sound good, and they point in opposite directions.&lt;p&gt;So, it&amp;#x27;s not a question of what the law says, it&amp;#x27;s a question of _values_, of what the law _should_ say.  You could argue either side of that, but saying that the Constitution or precedents give a clear guideline for a judge to use in deciding it, is not tenable.&lt;p&gt;Let&amp;#x27;s say the courts decided to intervene here.  What standard should they give?  &amp;quot;If it seems really unfair, strike it down?&amp;quot;  What looks really unfair to a Democratic-appointed judge is going to be different than what looks really unfair to a Republican-appointed judge.</text></comment>
<story><title>Supreme Court rules federal courts cannot invalidate partisan gerrymandering [pdf]</title><url>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>blakesterz</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s Roberts writing?&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Except it IS clear what unfairness looks like, and it&amp;#x27;s this.&lt;p&gt;“How much is too much?”&lt;p&gt;This, what they are doing right hear right now, this is too much. I have to assume it&amp;#x27;s obvious to the majority here and they know what they&amp;#x27;re doing.&lt;p&gt;Kagan&amp;#x27;s dissent is great and finishes with this which REALLY resonates with me:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the
law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in
these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the
Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations.
None is more important than free and fair elections. With
respect but deep sadness, I dissent. &amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>bsamuels</author><text>This is actually a fascinating read, despite the disappointing decision.&lt;p&gt;This section really resonates:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;  It is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context. It may mean achieving a greater number of competitive districts by undoing packing and cracking so that supporters of the disadvantaged party have a better shot at electing their preferred
candidates. But it could mean engaging in cracking and packing to
ensure each party its “appropriate” share of “safe” seats. Or perhaps
it should be measured by adherence to “traditional” districting criteria. Deciding among those different visions of fairness poses basic
questions that are political, not legal. There are no legal standards
discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments. And it is
only after determining how to define fairness that one can even begin
to answer the determinative question: “How much is too much?”</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>JumpCrisscross</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;this is too much&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a reasonable back and forth between the majority and minority on this question. The majority rejects unilaterally expanding the set of criteria the courts can use to overturn political maps. There&amp;#x27;s a good separation-of-powers argument for that conservatism.&lt;p&gt;(The court would prefer another branch decide what is and isn&amp;#x27;t too partisan, in the way Congress defined what is illegal racial gerrymandering.)</text></comment>