On August 16, the League of Women Voters of Illinois filed a federal lawsuit, charging that Illinois’ new redistricting plan violates the free speech provision of the First Amendment. The case is League of Women Voters of Illinois v Quinn, northern district, 11-cv-5569. The case was assigned to Judge Ruben Castillo, a Clinton appointee.
The complaint says, “Redistricting based on the content of partisan speech or viewpoints of residents, for a partisan purpose, creates an undue, unnecessary or unjustified abridgment of First Amendment rights…By considering the partisan composition of the districts and the political competitiveness of election campaigns in such districts, the General Assembly is unlawfully attempting to control or influence the kinds of views, opinions and speech that residents placed in those districts are likely to hear and receive, and is doing so in a manner that is not narrowly tailored.”
Democrats were completely in charge of Illinois government when the redistricting plan was passed this year. No one disagrees with the observation that the plan was designed to enhance the chances of Democratic nominees. The attorney who filed the case, Thomas H. Georghegan, is a well-known Democratic Party attorney who specializes in labor law. This lawsuit will face an uphill battle, because several times the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that nothing about partisan gerrymandering violates any part of the U.S. Constitution. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about this lawsuit.
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 control — in practice about 30-31 percent.
Did the 1787 folks waste their time by putting the *Republic Form of Government* in Art. IV, Sec. 4 ???
Did the 1866 folks waste their time putting EQUAL into 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 ???
How brain dead EVIL STUPID are the math MORONS on SCOTUS ???
Which party hack moron will shoot off ITS evil mouth and start Civil WAR II ???
“Uphill battle” is certainly accurate. But it wouldn’t be the first such battle that is won eventually. The Supreme Court has said that gerrymandering can be unconstitutional, but has never agreed on a legal standard for how to decide when unconstitutional gerrymandering has happened. It’s not clear how the First Amendment argument summarized above addresses that problem, but I haven’t read the whole suit.
# 2 The robot party hack SCOTUS folks did not detect the Equal in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 from Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 to Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — a mere 58 years — regarding *civil rights* (i.e. being in a public school).
For the merely UN-aware — nonstop EVIL gerrymanders in ALL States since the VA regime got going in 1607-1618 — AREA fixations for representation in legislative bodies.
Centuries of BRAIN-washing by the regimes — gerrymander oligarchs/monarchs.
P.R. and App.V.