I was listening the NC gerrymandering case, and this really popped out at me during the arguments with the Appellant's lawyer (representing the state), and it tied in with the other comment about 'proportional representation' that was linked for us by the mathematician.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: -- Mr. Clement,
does one person have one vote that counts
equally, which I take it to be the -- the
message of those cases, now well accepted, does
one person have one vote that counts equally
with others if the impact of her vote is
reduced based on her party affiliation?
The answer was a subtle comment that floored me. The answer was very subtle in the constitutional layer.
Quote:The answer to that question, Justice Ginsburg, is yes. You still have an equal right to vote as an individual. [....]
What they're complaining of is that they're grouped in a district with either too many people who agree with them or too few people who agree with them, and, therefore, their vote is sort of diluted in some way. [....]
[] I would say ... lots and lots of voters live in a district where, either because of geography or because of state action, they're not going to have their preferred candidate elected.
[] I'd go further and say most Americans don't get their preferred candidate elected because they have to choose from the candidates that are before them, and maybe based on the district they live in, it tends to give them a relatively liberal Democrat or a relatively conservative Republican when really what they'd prefer is somebody down the middle.
And none of those things, I think, are things that you are constitutionally entitled to.
He also noted that the NC legislature specifically and explicitly ordained that the districts should be drawn to get 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The issue is, at its core, a political one. The solution is also, at its core, a political one.
It is kind of weird to hear the liberal judges try and state a case that an individual has a Constitutional *right* to have a set number or a set proportion of Congressional districts drawn to reflect their political views. Not just weird, but rather astounding, to be blunt.
Edited to add: most know my stance on progressive judicial interpretation to simply ignore what they do not like, then dig like hell to find a 'new right' or 'new meaning'.
Here is an example:
Justice Breyer asks a meandering question and possible 'tests', and in the course states 'if a state uses a commission they get a pass on review [on partisan gerrymandering]'.
The attorney replies 'that seems to me itself to be remarkably revealing because you're basically saying that it would be a good thing for the state if they chose to use a mechanism other than the one that the framers picked [that is, the legislature itself].'
Which then starts off a shitshow with Kagan and Ginsburg.
Quickly followed by:
Quote: I am not here to tell you that if the Constitution included a one standard deviation from proportional representation clause or a one-third/two-thirds clause, that judges somehow would be incapable of administering that clause.
So I think the fundamental problem is there is no one standard deviation from proportional representation clause in the Constitution.