U.S. Supreme Court rejects redistricting (non-partisan) reform
Oh, oh--this is NOT good news. Our highest court is ruling against correcting gerrymandered voting districts!
It says the issue of drawing voting districts is a state matter, not a federal matter. I'm not sure what all that means, but I do hope it means gerrymandered problems can be addressed in the state supreme courts.
But that would mean that each state might come up with a different ruling on the matter. What is considered a fair voting district in one state would not be acceptable in the next state over.
There's no possibility of a standard that applies equally across the nation?
"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling that ordered Michigan politicians to return to the drawing board on voting maps. The Democratic voters who filed the lawsuit argued that the Republican-drawn voting maps would unduly weaken Democratic representation in the state.
The partisan gerrymandering ruling, which was handed down Monday, is the latest Supreme Court blow to redistricting reformers who advocate for fair voting districts that don't provide an advantage to any political party. In June, the justices ruled in cases involving Maryland and North Carolina that partisan gerrymandering is an issue for state, not federal, courts to police. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court threw out a similar case in Ohio.
The high court's ruling voids an April order by a three-judge panel for Michigan politicians to redraw 25 state legislative and nine U.S. House districts.
Redistricting takes place every 10 years, after the U.S. census, and in most states, the political party in charge controls the process. "
It is a well-known fact that a number of voting districts have been badly gerrymandered to guarantee Republicans a stronger advantage than they would get in "fair voting districts." Surely there is something we can do about gerrymandered districts.