So, I find it interesting that the court is acknowledging that "more compact" is a good thing - at least as a factor to be considered.
I understand that this is all VRA litigation, but the 14th Amendment lurks as well.
Do you think the needle has moved in favor of non-VRA plaintiffs who might argue that less compact districts are denying them the chance to elect a rep of their choice?
By this I mean that there was the anti-gerrymandering setback a few years ago where the court refused to get involved in non-race related gerrymandering. But now I see compactness come up - and as we all know these precedents tend to get built on - and if compactness is good for one thing, it might be good for others.
The Supreme Court has been emphasizing compactness more for some time. As we say in the podcast, the current decision turned in part on the fact that petitioners demonstrated that there was a map that was both more compact than the state of Alabama's map, and also had more Black ability-to-elect districts. This was done by computational search.
So, is x is a goal and it can be achieved with more compactness than the current choice that looks good.
Now .... merely stopping partisan gerrymandering seems out, but having district lines follow long-standing pre-existing lines (like county borders) might be a fresh avenue of attack ...
I also note that Nevada could easily draw a compact hispanic district rather than crack Las Vegas for Dem purposes, just as Utah could stop cracking Salt Lake for GOP purposes. I wonder if they are next ... Cracking cities seems suspect to me ...
Thanks!
So, I find it interesting that the court is acknowledging that "more compact" is a good thing - at least as a factor to be considered.
I understand that this is all VRA litigation, but the 14th Amendment lurks as well.
Do you think the needle has moved in favor of non-VRA plaintiffs who might argue that less compact districts are denying them the chance to elect a rep of their choice?
By this I mean that there was the anti-gerrymandering setback a few years ago where the court refused to get involved in non-race related gerrymandering. But now I see compactness come up - and as we all know these precedents tend to get built on - and if compactness is good for one thing, it might be good for others.
The Supreme Court has been emphasizing compactness more for some time. As we say in the podcast, the current decision turned in part on the fact that petitioners demonstrated that there was a map that was both more compact than the state of Alabama's map, and also had more Black ability-to-elect districts. This was done by computational search.
So, is x is a goal and it can be achieved with more compactness than the current choice that looks good.
Now .... merely stopping partisan gerrymandering seems out, but having district lines follow long-standing pre-existing lines (like county borders) might be a fresh avenue of attack ...
I also note that Nevada could easily draw a compact hispanic district rather than crack Las Vegas for Dem purposes, just as Utah could stop cracking Salt Lake for GOP purposes. I wonder if they are next ... Cracking cities seems suspect to me ...