These GOP election fraud legislators need to go to jail in Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania.
Let's not equate the two directly. What they threatened to do in PA was bad, but it doesn't rise to the level of this situation in Wisconsin. To break it down, two Republican State Congressman left their seats to join Walker's Administration. They are (in a normal situation) very red districts. After seeing the results of the special elections across the country in 2017, Walker just decided they weren't going to hold the special elections for the vacancies, claiming it would cost the taxpayers too much money and that the people in theses districts can just go WITHOUT representation for the bulk of the year. Then, when a judge rules against them and orders the election held, Walker and State GOP now want to hold a special election to CHANGE THE RULES about special elections simply to cater to this one specific circumstance they feel doesn't benefit them. It's the stuff you'd see in third-world banana republic.
I've never heard of a judge being impeached for making a decision that some legislators disagreed with. I thought judges could only be impeached if they committed a crime of some sort.
An article from the Federalist argues that the drawing of districts should be left to legislators instead of judges on the grounds that
They [legislators] have the most to lose from an unpopular decision, and weigh their choices with the people’s verdict in mind, unlike a state court elected statewide in off years for ten-year terms of office.
This is completely backward. Legislators, not the courts, have a vested interest in controlling the drawing of districts because it helps them win elections. The legislature has every reason to manipulate elections in their favor and zero reasons not to.
Legislators are the people who created the problem of gerrymandering. Now, after politicians have spent years manipulating elections in their own favor, this author opposes the courts who are trying to solve the problem on the grounds that the legislature should have power over the drawing of districts. It is precisely because the legislature has this power that Pennsylvania's districts are so intensely gerrymandered in the first place.
Legislators were the ones who drew those maps in the first place. They were rewarded for gerrymandering; it earned them more seats. And rather than stopping the practice because it was the right thing to do, they kept doing it for years. Now the courts, who did not create the problem and who do not benefit or suffer from gerrymandering, are trying to solve the problem.
But this Kyle Sammin believes that we should impeach the judges who are trying to end gerrymandering, and give the power to draw district lines to the exact same people who have been manipulating it for their own selfish interests for years on end, without ever getting punished for doing so.
I've just had a couple of days in Paris, which included rather more direct experience with politics than in my normal life. Apart from another terrorist attack in France there were problems with travelling as a result of a strike by rail workers seeking to protect their special benefits package. Then, when I eventually got to the hotel, the evening was rather noisy thanks to the anti-fascist rally right under my window.
After catching up with the thread I see there are a few topics that I might make contributions on after a good night's sleep. In the meantime I'll mention that the situation in Catalonia isn't getting better. Virtually all the pro-independence leadership is now either already in jail or under the threat of that. Since the democratic route to addressing their grievances has failed it seems a foregone conclusion to me that there will be within the next couple of years a new terror campaign in Spain in support of Catalonian separatism.
The GOP in Pennsylvania is going to impeach all the democratic judges because they lost a case at both the Pennsylvania and US Supreme Court.
Yes it is more Republican banana republic stuff it is similar.
I'm not saying their threats aren't ridiculously bad themselves, only that Scott Walker and his cronies in the Republican Congress in Wisconsin are quite literally just tossing the entire democratic process overboard on the OUTSIDE CHANCE they might lose one or two seats in a special election. I have never seen anything remotely like this.
The GOP in Pennsylvania is going to impeach all the democratic judges because they lost a case at both the Pennsylvania and US Supreme Court.
Yes it is more Republican banana republic stuff it is similar.
Just a small correction (though I don't think it matters much): They didn't lose the case at the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court just refused to hear the case.
I've never heard of a judge being impeached for making a decision that some legislators disagreed with. I thought judges could only be impeached if they committed a crime of some sort.
An article from the Federalist argues that the drawing of districts should be left to legislators instead of judges on the grounds that
They [legislators] have the most to lose from an unpopular decision, and weigh their choices with the people’s verdict in mind, unlike a state court elected statewide in off years for ten-year terms of office.
This is completely backward. Legislators, not the courts, have a vested interest in controlling the drawing of districts because it helps them win elections. The legislature has every reason to manipulate elections in their favor and zero reasons not to.
While you're point would hold true in most cases, Pennsylvania has elected judges. The Pennsylvania court can therefore gerrymander on their own and face minimal backlash (ten years is a long time)
Who gave the Supreme Court the power to draw lines is the real question. This is a legislative power. The courts don't initiate, and shouldn't have the power to rewrite legislation.
While you're point would hold true in most cases, Pennsylvania has elected judges. The Pennsylvania court can therefore gerrymander on their own and face minimal backlash (ten years is a long time)
Who gave the Supreme Court the power to draw lines is the real question. This is a legislative power. The courts don't initiate, and shouldn't have the power to rewrite legislation.
So what's your solution? If the court determines that the gerrymandered districts are unconstitutional, what happens next? If no branch of the (state) government has the ability to check the legislative branch on their districting, they'll run completely amok.
Here's a cynical question for you: If the GOP (or democrats) could potentially gerrymander every district within a state so that all but one district would reliably vote for them... would they? Is that even democracy anymore?
While you're point would hold true in most cases, Pennsylvania has elected judges. The Pennsylvania court can therefore gerrymander on their own and face minimal backlash (ten years is a long time)
PA supreme court justices are statewide elections.
Who gave the Supreme Court the power to draw lines is the real question. This is a legislative power. The courts don't initiate, and shouldn't have the power to rewrite legislation.
The PA supreme court ruled the maps, as drawn by the legislature, were illegal and provided guidelines and a deadline. When the legislature failed to make legal maps, the court appointed an expert to do it.
In short, the legislature was unable--or unwilling--to comply with a court order. There are numerous precedents where the judicial has exercised authority normally reserved to the legislature under these circumstances, e.g. in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. In Virginia the legislature appropriated zero funds for the public schools so the courts ordered taxes to re-open (and desegregate) them.
The March for our Lives rallies all across the country today seemed to be on par or greater than the numbers for the Women's March the last two years. I won't make any concrete predictions, but I will say this. IF even half these kids (or really anybody) who participated today actually do get out and vote this year (most of them their first election), the the Republican Party has absolutely no idea what is going to hit them.
While you're point would hold true in most cases, Pennsylvania has elected judges. The Pennsylvania court can therefore gerrymander on their own and face minimal backlash (ten years is a long time)
PA supreme court justices are statewide elections.
Who gave the Supreme Court the power to draw lines is the real question. This is a legislative power. The courts don't initiate, and shouldn't have the power to rewrite legislation.
The PA supreme court ruled the maps, as drawn by the legislature, were illegal and provided guidelines and a deadline. When the legislature failed to make legal maps, the court appointed an expert to do it.
In short, the legislature was unable--or unwilling--to comply with a court order. There are numerous precedents where the judicial has exercised authority normally reserved to the legislature under these circumstances, e.g. in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. In Virginia the legislature appropriated zero funds for the public schools so the courts ordered taxes to re-open (and desegregate) them.
What the court says is that if Virginia maintains and operates a school system, it cannot close certain schools in response to integration measures, as that would violate the equal protection rights of schoolchildren in those districts.
In fact, the court goes out of its way to ensure that it does not play a legislative function: " We do not suggest that, aside from the Constitution of Virginia, the state must maintain a public school system. That is a matter for state determination. We merely point out that the closing of a public school, or grade therein, for the reasons heretofore assigned violates the right of a citizen to equal protection of the laws"
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court instead decided to redistrict itself. The proper course, if gerrymandering is indeed illegal, would be to continue to reject proposals until the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor put forth a plan that complied with the law.
Also in Brown the court did not exercise legislative authority, it merely made a decision on 14th Amendment grounds and relied on the executive to enforce it. People underrate just how important Eisenhower was to integration. It would never have happened, even with Brown, had he not employed the National Guard.
The GOP in Pennsylvania is going to impeach all the democratic judges because they lost a case at both the Pennsylvania and US Supreme Court.
Yes it is more Republican banana republic stuff it is similar.
Just a small correction (though I don't think it matters much): They didn't lose the case at the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court just refused to hear the case.
By refusing to hear the case, they are "basically" saying that they agree with the prior rulings. They let the prior rulings stand. There is no other authority to appeal to so they in effect ruled against the evil GOP that was disenfranchising people in Pennsylvania.
Despite winning only about 50% of the vote they were stealing 13/18 seats. They deserve to lose hard. They have been robbing people of their rights and representation. By circumventing the will of the voters, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the US appeals system (including the US Supreme Court) they are breaking the law. They need to be punished and made an example of.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court instead decided to redistrict itself. The proper course, if gerrymandering is indeed illegal, would be to continue to reject proposals until the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor put forth a plan that complied with the law.
That... isnt a solution. You see that, right? If the court has no means or ability to compel the legislators to write laws that are constitutional, then the legislators will not make constitutional laws.
The only feasible "check" on that system would be by voting those legislators out of office. Except... the thing they're doing unconstitutionally is packing their districts to make it exceptionally unlikely that they're going to be voted out of office.
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
The mostly republican legislature of PA drew up a map that favored them and the mostly democrat supreme court rejected it in favor of a map that favors democrats. Almost everyone who has looked at the map has come to the conclusion that it is a solid boost to the left. The idea that judges can't be biased when we've had folks like Ginsburg and Scalia on the Supreme Court would be a bit rich.
The mostly republican legislature of PA drew up a map that favored them and the mostly democrat supreme court rejected it in favor of a map that favors democrats. Almost everyone who has looked at the map has come to the conclusion that it is a solid boost to the left. The idea that judges can't be biased when we've had folks like Ginsburg and Scalia on the Supreme Court would be a bit rich.
Sortof? 18 members of the house in PA. Currently, 6 of those are Democrats, and 12 are GOP. It was 13-5 before Connor Lamb won his seat the other day.
If I am not mistaken, PA has only voted for the GOP twice in 30 years (I think 1988 and 2016. It could be 1992 as well).
I've read that the new maps make it more likely for Democrats to win 3 to 4 more seats. Assuming non-wave years (So presidential election years, generally), the map will look 10 GOP to 8 Democrat or 9-9.
Wouldnt call that much of a democrat advantage in a state that usually votes blue, and has more registered D's than R's.
The mostly republican legislature of PA drew up a map that favored them and the mostly democrat supreme court rejected it in favor of a map that favors democrats. Almost everyone who has looked at the map has come to the conclusion that it is a solid boost to the left. The idea that judges can't be biased when we've had folks like Ginsburg and Scalia on the Supreme Court would be a bit rich.
Republicans get 50% of the vote and 13/18 seats. They have been cheating.
The courts did not draw up a map to favor democrats they undid the rigged republican map to reflect the will of the voters.
The map is now MORE favorable to Democrats. On balance, it still SLIGHTLY favors the GOP. If the Supreme Court Justices had been looking to tilt the map in favor of the Democrats, why wouldn't they have drawn up a map that favored the Democrats in the same way the Republican legislature did?? If they are trying to tilt the playing field, they are sure being meek about it.
But doesn't a new map, that favors the Republicans less, automatically favor the Democrats more?
Not necessarily by turning the advantage around to the other party. Ideally a new map should favor no one.
But by simply removing the advantage for one party, the other party can increase its odds, can it not? And by that, any new map, that favors the Republicans less, favors the Democrats more.
If someone breaks into my house and steals $100, then later that week I break into his house and manage to take $75 of it back, am I equally as guilty??
It's not even a matter of two wrongs making a right.
The old map favored Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. The new map does not "favor the Democrats"; it is now fair to both parties. That's not switching from Republican gerrymandering to Democratic gerrymandering; it's the removal of gerrymandering.
The goal here is to get a nonpartisan map that accurately reflects the will of the voters. That is what the new map does.
But doesn't a new map, that favors the Republicans less, automatically favor the Democrats more?
Not necessarily by turning the advantage around to the other party. Ideally a new map should favor no one.
But by simply removing the advantage for one party, the other party can increase its odds, can it not? And by that, any new map, that favors the Republicans less, favors the Democrats more.
If someone breaks into my house and steals $100, then later that week I break into his house and manage to take $75 of it back, am I equally as guilty??
The better analogy would be somebody stealing $100 from you, then being forced to return the $100 by a judge, then complaining that the judge was biased because the judge's decision cost him $100. The criminal is only "disadvantaged" in the sense that he no longer has an illegal advantage.
Not necessarily by turning the advantage around to the other party. Ideally a new map should favor no one.
Courts rarely touch gerrymandering cases, recognizing that redistricting is an explicitly partisan process; there's nothing illegal about gerrymandering. The handful of cases where the judiciary intervenes is for other considerations, e.g. the GOP-drawn North Carolina map was rejected because it was designed to target and disenfranchise minorities, not because it disenfranchised Democrats.
The interesting twist in Pennsylvania is that the court used the state constitution to provide broader voter protections than federal law. The PA constitutions says that elections should be "free and equal" and ruled that excessively gerrymandered* maps failed that standard. About half of state constitutions use some variant of "free and equal" or "free and open"; it will be interesting to see if voter rights groups try this argument in other states.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court instead decided to redistrict itself. The proper course, if gerrymandering is indeed illegal, would be to continue to reject proposals until the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor put forth a plan that complied with the law.
That... isnt a solution. You see that, right? If the court has no means or ability to compel the legislators to write laws that are constitutional, then the legislators will not make constitutional laws.
The only feasible "check" on that system would be by voting those legislators out of office. Except... the thing they're doing unconstitutionally is packing their districts to make it exceptionally unlikely that they're going to be voted out of office.
@BallpointMan Respectfully, there are two integral factual misunderstandings in your post. You have to have a basic understanding of the factual background before even discussing these issues. We can disagree on the merits, but your post here is factually wrong and/or based on incorrect assumptions.
As many people here know, living in a "fact-free" society is so allow me to respectfully correct you.
1. I'm amazed that you can say that the judiciary's role is to compel legislation.
The courts have a power to declare laws unconstitutional, not compel legislators to pass laws. I don't want to make a snarky comment about 8th grade civics, but I'm sure you understand that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" because it is specifically designed not to initiate (ie "compel) legislation.
2. You're also very mistaken about gerrymandering. Your second post makes the claim that the people drawing the districts are gerrymandering for their own elections.
This is untrue. The districts being drawn are for congressional elections. In other words, it determines districts for the congressmen that Pennsylvania sends to the United States House of Representatives, not who local districts send to the Pennsylvania legislature.
Please, please rethink your post in light of that knowledge.
Second, I'll respond to your contention that "That... isnt a solution. You see that, right? If the court has no means or ability to compel the legislators to write laws that are constitutional, then the legislators will not make constitutional laws."
Yes, it is a solution. If there is no districting elections cannot take place. Therefore if unconstitutional redistricting is shot down, the state legislature will have to try again until it comes up with a solution that passes constitutional muster (according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court). The power to strike down unconstitutional redistricting plans ensures that a constitutional redistricting plan would be in place.
The mostly republican legislature of PA drew up a map that favored them and the mostly democrat supreme court rejected it in favor of a map that favors democrats. Almost everyone who has looked at the map has come to the conclusion that it is a solid boost to the left. The idea that judges can't be biased when we've had folks like Ginsburg and Scalia on the Supreme Court would be a bit rich.
Republicans get 50% of the vote and 13/18 seats. They have been cheating.
The courts did not draw up a map to favor democrats they undid the rigged republican map to reflect the will of the voters.
Gerrymandering may be bad for a variety of reasons, but discussing this in a "right to vote" context is just wrong. The underlying idea that we need proportional representation in terms of political parties is just absurd.
You have a right to vote. You don't have a right to win elections.
A red voter in a blue district has just as much a right to vote as anyone else in that district.
Gerrymandering is wrong, and you can criticize it. But the idea that you have a right to design districts so that two parties have an equal chance at maximizing representation has nothing to do with someone's individual right to vote.
In fact it flies in the face of reality. What about libertarian and green party voteres? These people get ZERO representation in Congress. Is their rights to vote now violated? Should we redistrict so that we ensure at least 2 Green and Libertarian party candidates in Congress every year?
People have a right to vote. Political parties do not have a right to congressional seats.
I was thinking more of Griffin v. Prince Edward County BOE, but it's not the only example.
Hey, I don't have time to read the whole case but I read the Oyez summary, and my point still holds.
Here it is: "Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black authored the opinion of the 7-2 majority, in which the Court held that the closing of the county’s schools denied the African American children an education that was available to their white peers. Although the closing of public schools is not unconstitutional in itself, when schools are closed for the express purpose of denying education to a group of children based on race, the action violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the district court had the power to order the county to collect the necessary taxes and to reopen the public schools."
The point is that the Virginia legislature cannot provide public education while allowing Prince Edward County to shirk its responsibility by closing schools and providing vouchers... when no voucher-accepting schools took black students. Again, the premise was barred participation in an educational program being a violation of the Equal Protections Clause. So while it may have been the first time a court ordered a county to exercise its power of taxation, it had a basis in the fact that the county was already spending on education, and must ensure that it does so equally. The Virginia legislature still had the option of "getting out of the educating children business" altogether (which, thankfully, it didn't do... because that would be stupid)
I "agreed" with your post because the second half is spot on and accurate.
Comments
Yes it is more Republican banana republic stuff it is similar.
An article from the Federalist argues that the drawing of districts should be left to legislators instead of judges on the grounds that This is completely backward. Legislators, not the courts, have a vested interest in controlling the drawing of districts because it helps them win elections. The legislature has every reason to manipulate elections in their favor and zero reasons not to.
Legislators are the people who created the problem of gerrymandering. Now, after politicians have spent years manipulating elections in their own favor, this author opposes the courts who are trying to solve the problem on the grounds that the legislature should have power over the drawing of districts. It is precisely because the legislature has this power that Pennsylvania's districts are so intensely gerrymandered in the first place.
Legislators were the ones who drew those maps in the first place. They were rewarded for gerrymandering; it earned them more seats. And rather than stopping the practice because it was the right thing to do, they kept doing it for years. Now the courts, who did not create the problem and who do not benefit or suffer from gerrymandering, are trying to solve the problem.
But this Kyle Sammin believes that we should impeach the judges who are trying to end gerrymandering, and give the power to draw district lines to the exact same people who have been manipulating it for their own selfish interests for years on end, without ever getting punished for doing so.
After catching up with the thread I see there are a few topics that I might make contributions on after a good night's sleep. In the meantime I'll mention that the situation in Catalonia isn't getting better. Virtually all the pro-independence leadership is now either already in jail or under the threat of that. Since the democratic route to addressing their grievances has failed it seems a foregone conclusion to me that there will be within the next couple of years a new terror campaign in Spain in support of Catalonian separatism.
Who gave the Supreme Court the power to draw lines is the real question. This is a legislative power. The courts don't initiate, and shouldn't have the power to rewrite legislation.
Here's a cynical question for you: If the GOP (or democrats) could potentially gerrymander every district within a state so that all but one district would reliably vote for them... would they? Is that even democracy anymore?
In short, the legislature was unable--or unwilling--to comply with a court order. There are numerous precedents where the judicial has exercised authority normally reserved to the legislature under these circumstances, e.g. in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. In Virginia the legislature appropriated zero funds for the public schools so the courts ordered taxes to re-open (and desegregate) them.
What the court says is that if Virginia maintains and operates a school system, it cannot close certain schools in response to integration measures, as that would violate the equal protection rights of schoolchildren in those districts.
In fact, the court goes out of its way to ensure that it does not play a legislative function:
" We do not suggest that, aside from the Constitution of Virginia, the state must maintain a public school system. That is a matter for state determination. We merely point out that the closing of a public school, or grade therein, for the reasons heretofore assigned violates the right of a citizen to equal protection of the laws"
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court instead decided to redistrict itself. The proper course, if gerrymandering is indeed illegal, would be to continue to reject proposals until the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor put forth a plan that complied with the law.
Also in Brown the court did not exercise legislative authority, it merely made a decision on 14th Amendment grounds and relied on the executive to enforce it. People underrate just how important Eisenhower was to integration. It would never have happened, even with Brown, had he not employed the National Guard.
Despite winning only about 50% of the vote they were stealing 13/18 seats. They deserve to lose hard. They have been robbing people of their rights and representation. By circumventing the will of the voters, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the US appeals system (including the US Supreme Court) they are breaking the law. They need to be punished and made an example of.
The only feasible "check" on that system would be by voting those legislators out of office. Except... the thing they're doing unconstitutionally is packing their districts to make it exceptionally unlikely that they're going to be voted out of office.
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
If I am not mistaken, PA has only voted for the GOP twice in 30 years (I think 1988 and 2016. It could be 1992 as well).
I've read that the new maps make it more likely for Democrats to win 3 to 4 more seats. Assuming non-wave years (So presidential election years, generally), the map will look 10 GOP to 8 Democrat or 9-9.
Wouldnt call that much of a democrat advantage in a state that usually votes blue, and has more registered D's than R's.
The courts did not draw up a map to favor democrats they undid the rigged republican map to reflect the will of the voters.
The old map favored Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. The new map does not "favor the Democrats"; it is now fair to both parties. That's not switching from Republican gerrymandering to Democratic gerrymandering; it's the removal of gerrymandering.
The goal here is to get a nonpartisan map that accurately reflects the will of the voters. That is what the new map does.
The interesting twist in Pennsylvania is that the court used the state constitution to provide broader voter protections than federal law. The PA constitutions says that elections should be "free and equal" and ruled that excessively gerrymandered* maps failed that standard. About half of state constitutions use some variant of "free and equal" or "free and open"; it will be interesting to see if voter rights groups try this argument in other states.
The Philadelphia Inquirer has a pretty good timeline of events about the maps.
* If you think that "excessively gerrymandered" is a vague term, then you understand why there's been so much litigation about the decision.
@BallpointMan
Respectfully, there are two integral factual misunderstandings in your post. You have to have a basic understanding of the factual background before even discussing these issues. We can disagree on the merits, but your post here is factually wrong and/or based on incorrect assumptions.
As many people here know, living in a "fact-free" society is so allow me to respectfully correct you.
1. I'm amazed that you can say that the judiciary's role is to compel legislation.
The courts have a power to declare laws unconstitutional, not compel legislators to pass laws. I don't want to make a snarky comment about 8th grade civics, but I'm sure you understand that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" because it is specifically designed not to initiate (ie "compel) legislation.
2. You're also very mistaken about gerrymandering. Your second post makes the claim that the people drawing the districts are gerrymandering for their own elections.
This is untrue. The districts being drawn are for congressional elections. In other words, it determines districts for the congressmen that Pennsylvania sends to the United States House of Representatives, not who local districts send to the Pennsylvania legislature.
Please, please rethink your post in light of that knowledge.
Second, I'll respond to your contention that "That... isnt a solution. You see that, right? If the court has no means or ability to compel the legislators to write laws that are constitutional, then the legislators will not make constitutional laws."
Yes, it is a solution. If there is no districting elections cannot take place. Therefore if unconstitutional redistricting is shot down, the state legislature will have to try again until it comes up with a solution that passes constitutional muster (according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court). The power to strike down unconstitutional redistricting plans ensures that a constitutional redistricting plan would be in place.
You have a right to vote. You don't have a right to win elections.
A red voter in a blue district has just as much a right to vote as anyone else in that district.
Gerrymandering is wrong, and you can criticize it. But the idea that you have a right to design districts so that two parties have an equal chance at maximizing representation has nothing to do with someone's individual right to vote.
In fact it flies in the face of reality. What about libertarian and green party voteres? These people get ZERO representation in Congress. Is their rights to vote now violated? Should we redistrict so that we ensure at least 2 Green and Libertarian party candidates in Congress every year?
People have a right to vote. Political parties do not have a right to congressional seats.
Here it is:
"Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black authored the opinion of the 7-2 majority, in which the Court held that the closing of the county’s schools denied the African American children an education that was available to their white peers. Although the closing of public schools is not unconstitutional in itself, when schools are closed for the express purpose of denying education to a group of children based on race, the action violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the district court had the power to order the county to collect the necessary taxes and to reopen the public schools."
The point is that the Virginia legislature cannot provide public education while allowing Prince Edward County to shirk its responsibility by closing schools and providing vouchers... when no voucher-accepting schools took black students. Again, the premise was barred participation in an educational program being a violation of the Equal Protections Clause. So while it may have been the first time a court ordered a county to exercise its power of taxation, it had a basis in the fact that the county was already spending on education, and must ensure that it does so equally. The Virginia legislature still had the option of "getting out of the educating children business" altogether (which, thankfully, it didn't do... because that would be stupid)
I "agreed" with your post because the second half is spot on and accurate.
I've voted in 11 national elections (3 presidential, 5 House, 3 Senate)
The candidates I voted for never one. Not once.
I still had a right to vote.