On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 13-1314. Here is the Scotusblog analysis of how the argument went. The issue is whether Article One of the U.S. Constitution allows states to let governmental bodies other than the state legislature to draw U.S. House district boundaries. Here is the transcript of the hearing.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL —
with or without any gerrymander commissions.
Too many MORONS in Dumb City to count — since 1789.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The U.S.A. Senate is possibly THE most ANTI-Democracy legislative body in a nation in Western Civilization — due to the many below average SMALL States with their blowhard HACK Senators.
Result — the Minority Rule gerrymander Electoral College Prezs appoint robot party hacks to be in SCOTUS — which the Senate hacks approve.
The EVIL monarchy/oligarchy continues to do its NONSTOP EVIL machinations
— esp. the 5 of 9 robot party HACKS on SCOTUS
— expanding the Federal govt and systematically destroying the State/local governments — esp. since 1936.
How soon before gerrymander Civil WAR II ???
Gerrymander Civil WAR I in 1860-1865 was directly due to the gerrymanders in force in 1860.
The argument went well for the Legislature. Pretty clear that it will be awarded standing to press its challenge. The Justices seemed to assume that the federal statute at issue did not authorize creation of the Commission, so that one also favors the Legislature. As for the constitutional issue, my read is that four Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and CJ) favor Legislature. Two (Kagan and Sotomayor) favor Commission. Rest are up for grabs, though Kennedy did say that history is against the Commission. I cannot believe the Court will allow the Legislature to be completely frozen out of the districting process.
I suspect that most of the election laws passed by initiative that Kagan is concerned about are of a general nature that applies to all elections, such as all-mail elections in Oregon. Even if they were an infringement on the legislature’s prerogative with respect to congressional elections, the legislature would likely conform them, rather than have to open polling places for congressional elections only. But congressional districting is specific to federal elections.
2 USC 2(c), as distinguished from 2 USC 2c, is something I doubt that the Commission wants to depend on, see ‘Branch v Smith’ 538 U.S. 254 (2003).