,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Four federal courts have now used a 3-point test for deciding if a partisan gerrymander is permissible or not:
1) Did lawmakers deliberately draw the lines to restrict voter choice?
2) Do the lines actually do so?
3) Is there no other plausible reason to draw the lines that way?
1) Did lawmakers deliberately draw the lines to restrict voter choice?
2) Do the lines actually do so?
3) Is there no other plausible reason to draw the lines that way?
The GOP justices on the Supreme Court kept asking plaintiffs, over and over again, what is a workable standard to balance state lawmakers' constitutional powers with the voting rights of constituents?
If they really want an answer, the lower courts are spoon-feeding it to them.
If they really want an answer, the lower courts are spoon-feeding it to them.
Honestly, that seems like a perfect compromise to me. It's not overly complicated, and it leaves plenty of room for lawmakers to draw lines as they see fit, while giving voters relief in federal court for the very worst offenses.
Too bad GOP justices don't operate in good faith.
Too bad GOP justices don't operate in good faith.
