Posted on 12/16/2005 10:57:46 PM PST by flattorney
Gerrymanders are as old as our republic, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in a 2004 Supreme Court decision on redistricting in Pennsylvania.
>the courts have rarely overturned electoral maps drawn by partisan legislatures. But people keep trying,...re SCOTUS Texas redistricting acceptance.
>raised hopes that the Supremes might finally enunciate a standard for how far is too far in rigging electoral district lines.
>in almost two decades of litigation the Court has yet to find a case that justified intervention. Moreover, in 2004, four of the Justices....declared themselves ready to throw in the towel and escape from ever hearing another partisan redistricting case.
>..the Constitution tells us that this (gerrymandering) is a question for states and Congress to decide, not the courts.
Excellent Op-Ed. Please read full article
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
US Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases Against Texas Redistricting
- - FR Thread Links
- - Current Events
- - Key Experts Comments
- - Position Statement by FlAttorney
- - Legal PDF Files
The DeLay Chronicles - Texas Criminal Indictments & More
News & Events Tracking, Complete Resources Master, and Expert Commentary - Updated 24/7
Posted by TAB
The problem with ANY form of districting is that violates the right of political association.
In effect, the state tells us who we will be grouped with, whether it makes sense or not or whether we agree or not.
The only thing that MIGHT come close to being fair is if districts were based on party registration, with independents in their own districts.
This way people can join with others of like mind an have a genuine representative in congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.