Summary Analysis
R-71
DATE: 2019-06-27
DOCKET: 18-422
NAME:Robert A. Rucho, et al., Appellants v. Common Cause, et al.
WORTHY: True
OPINION: Court
AUTHOR: Roberts
JOINING: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 34
OPINION: Dissenting
AUTHOR: Kagan
JOINING: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
GOOD: No
PAGES: 33
Case Commentary
I'm not a Lawyer. I don't know much about The Law. And my interest in the subject is more Philosophical than Practical.I wonder if any of that is much of a handicap when it comes to analysing this particular case.
Is Gerrymandering wrong?
Let us assume that it is.
Can anything be done about it?
I doubt it.
First, let me state that I do not believe there is much (if anything) Democratic about a Two Party Representational System.
I don't know if I have ever agreed with anyone (fully and completely) let alone a politician... in the midst of their trademarked Double Speak™.
Fundamentally, it is my belief (however erroneous) that any two people are likely to disagree about half the time... that where the discussion takes place, where the participants find it interesting is at that line of disagreement.
The example I give for what I mean is suppose you were to walk into a group (say a Union Hall, Church Assembly, or Political Party Meeting) and give the attendees one hundred multiple choice questions (or just true and false questions). Well, if the questions were worded correctly, about half the attendees would say one thing and the other half another.
Gun Control?
The use of Cis-Gendered Pronouns?
What one means by The Father, Son, & The Holy Ghost?
At a fine enough level (i.e. in the micro-analysis), we all disagree.
And since laws are now instantiated at the micro-level, that means we all disagree (at a fundamental level) about what should be The Law.
Marijuana was recently decriminalized in Illinois. This particular bit of legislation is 500-700 pages long.
I think I could have done it in a couple of pages.
In fact, I may have been able to do it by erasing a dozen words here and there without adding a single word anywhere.
Who knows?
The point is that the law which was ratified differed by my version by well over 500 Pages.
And as such, it is hard to say the folks who wrote that particular law represented me (or my beliefs) in any way, shape, or form.
In other words, I don't feel like I've won a Political Election over the course of my entire life.
The Dissent says (it is likely, the current decision will):
Drive voters away from an ever more dysfunctional political process.Sorry, but the Critical Point in that analysis (for me, anyhow) was reached a long time ago.
The case at hand is about Gerrymandering, Egregious Gerrymandering, Blatant Disrespectful Dishonourable Gerrymandering.
Unfortunately, even without the Gerrymander, I do not feel my voice is heard, so it makes no never mind to me.
I probably should describe what a fair Electoral System would look like to me.
Voting Districts change, because the Population Mix changes and Representation is based upon Population. So if we have Voting Districts, the District Maps ARE going to get redrawn every ten years after The Census.
My solution would be to eliminated Voting Districts. In fact, I can even see eliminating State Specific Representation at the Federal Level.
Instead, I would allow folks to self select and vote for whoever they want. But even that is not fair, as the popular candidates would get way more votes than they need. So, I would allow people to use their overflowed votes for whoever they want.
- I vote for My First Choice.
- My First Choice needed X Votes.
- My First Choice got Y Votes.
- So a Fractional Share of a Vote (X/Y, to be exact) is carried over to My Second Choice.
- And so on down the line, until I have no Fractional Votes left.
- i.e. My Choice Wins at X=Y.
- Or My Choice Loses at Y<X.
I am sure it is overly complicated.
I am sure it will never be implemented.
Further, I have no great need for anyone else to Vote on my behalf, which is the entire basis of a Representational System.
After all, the original intent was not Democracy, but a sharing of power by those who already had power.
You are free to disagree.
But then, you would be wrong... or at least, have to come up with a some outlandish rationalisation for why only Male Landowners got the vote and Women, Poor Folks, and those even poorer than poor (best just to call them Slaves) were disenfranchised.
Democracy?
What History Books are you reading?
Meh.
Let us agree to disagree... and move on.
Thus (to recap the gist of the forgoing succinctly and completely), I really don't care that we have Gerrymandering as we really don't (and never did) have a Democracy. Meaning, I really don't care if Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum is running the show, because from my point of view, they both suck.
Are you aligned with a Political Party?
Do you (sort of) hold the Opposition in contempt?
Well, I feel that way about both sides.
F! Them All!
As far as I am concerned (i.e. this is my personal reading of the case, opinions are bound to differ, so do your own research: i.e. a summary of The Case is not what this page is about), The Court says that eliminating biased Voting Districts (aka Gerrymandering) is impossible, given The System we have.
To hold that legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers' decision to entrust districting to political entities.
Districting inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences.
And one of the reason I like The Court's Opinion over The Dissent's (even though The Dissent seems to be trying harder, it certainly seems to care more about fairness) is because I believe The Court understands (or at least, states) the inequities inherent in The System better.
To wit:
There is a large measure of unfairness in any winner-take-all system.
In the end, The Court's solution is to kick the problem down to The States.
The cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.Meaning (as I read it, anyhow), this isn't a Federal Problem, this is a State Level Problem.
As I said, it is a lack of understanding (accepting, or discussing to my satisfaction) the inequities inherent in this winner-take-all that fuels my rejection of The Dissent.
The Dissent goes on and on about how a Minority Party can be (or in the instances at hand is) under-represented and likes to imply (of course, the use of the word like is supposition on my part and it is much more reasonable to assume the Dissent is pained to have to point out) that a 45% (or 35% or whatever percent) of the public deserves 45% (or 35% or whatever percent) of the voting seats. But in a winner-take-all election, 45% is just enough to lose... and 45% (35% or any percent under 50% for that matter) might might as well be 0%.
Meaning, if they are going to go all out to protect that 45%, I want to know why they are not proposing a solution that protects my 0.000000302% interest.
I mean, if we are going to Defend Minority Interests, let's Defend Minority Interests!
The Dissent would like to implement a three step process (or so I believe) to protect against Gerrymandering.
- Intent
- A Gerrymandering mens rae, as it were?
- Effect
- Does the map effect an undesired change?
- Causation
- Are there no valid (Non-Gerrymandering) rationales for the map at hand.
Actually, one of the more interesting things about this case (actually, the most interesting thing) is that Gerrymander is not against the law. Well, maybe on The State level it is. But certainly, from the results of this case, we may surmise that it is not illegal on the Federal Level.
{As an aside, I am willing to propose that in a True Democracy, Gerrymandering would be a form of Treason (or simply impossible). But the Good Old US of A is not a True Democracy (as I would define it). And so, Gerrymandering is not only legal. It's the way things are done.}
And because of this, the Gerrymanders in question admitted (nay, bragged) about their intent to Rig The System.
However, please note, it would be much harder to catch a Gerrymander if they knew in advance that Gerrymandering was illegal... but that something very similar in effect only called by a different name was not.
If Elected, I will Rig The System!
v
If Elected, I will Return the Power of Democracy to <Insert Name Of Special Interest Group Here>!
And I think that is where I shall leave it.
I find it amusing that Gerrymandering is legal.
But then, it's not hard to break a broken system.
Is Truth the highest ideal?
Is Freedom?
Justice?
Honour?
Integrity?
If not, why are you surprised when a Second Rate Democracy is slowly transformed into a Third or Fourth Rate Democracy.