TOTALLY disagree. I am, quite frankly, stunned that the supposed “conservatives” on the Court didn’t uphold this one. This is one of those few things that I expected to come down around 8-1. This is a HUGE victory for the people.
The people voted for this. They should have it. All too often (as we should) we scream about “activist judges” thwarting the will of the people. Seems 4 of those judges wanted that.
GREAT ruling!!
I understand your point. My guess though is that the original intent of this process was to avoid partisan gerrymandering, which is almost exclusively abused by the democrats, so that you don’t end up with districts that look like Barney Franks, Corrine Brown, or Austin TX. However, the democraps have once again polluted this too.
The theory of the “non-partisan” commission doesn’t nearly match the application (and likely never will), and it sure as hell did not in Arizona in 2010-11. This nominally Republican state was gerrymandered beyond belief by the liberal partisan hacks who controlled the commission and the map heavily favors the Democrats and will for the next 3 election cycles.
Now you know why the radical left faction of the Supreme Court gleefully supported the plan. In Arizona, and in any other state which may adopt “non-partisan” redistricting, the result will almost certainly be the same — a major boost for the Rats.
You’ll notice that no Rat-controlled state legislature will ever forfeit their chance to screw Republicans; only in so-called “red” states will this alleged non-partisan bullshit ever happen.
The reason the conservative justices didn't uphold this one is contained in the U.S. Constitution.
Article I, Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.Logic does not permit one to conclude that "the Legislature" in AIS4 could be interpreted to mean "the People." This is not, as some might argue, a States' Rights issue because the Constitution specifically instructs on elections.
While in principle, I actually think the idea of someone other than partisan political hacks doing redistricting (is there such an animal?), I was reading through the decision, and the logic of the dissenters is almost exactly the same as that argued against the recent obamacare decision. In that case, just because the majority wanted the wording "by the state" to mean "by the state or federal government", does not make it true. In this case, the Constitution specifies that redistricting be done by the legislature. Just because it might be a good idea to have a commission do the job, doesn't mean it is Constitutional to do so. The solution is to amend the Constitution to make it legal, not just redefine "legislature" to mean "legislature or the people".
I thought it was interesting that Roberts authored this dissent, given that he voted the other way on SCOTUSCare.
Irony much?