SCOTUS rules in favor of independent redistricting

[BmorePat87]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf

Arizona had a ballot referendum that created an independent commission to draw their congressional districts. It was passed by the voters and prevented the GOP controlled legislature from deciding how to draw the lines.

The problem is that the Constitution says that this is the job of the state legislatures. In Arizona, the people have the same power of the legislature when it comes to ballot initiatives. Anything they can do, the people can also do via the ballot.

The Arizona legislature argued that the Constitution makes it clear that they have the power, making the independent commission unconstitutional. The independent commission argued, though, that they fact that the people are given this power to act as the legislature, setting up the independent commission via the ballot initiative was an act of the legislature.

The court ruled in favor (5-4) of the commission. Roberts authored the dissent in which he said that they're "playing magic" with the clause that grants the power of drawing lines to the legislatures. He argues the purist sense of the word.

As someone who dislikes gerrymandering. I also support a state allowing its citizens to share the power of the legislature via referendum. If Arizona wants their citizens to have this power, and each state is charged with setting up their legislature, they can't complain when the people do something that the majority of the legislature opposed and ask the Federal Courts to reverse it.

I initially did not like the ruling of this case before I read that the people have this power in Arizona as I thought they were playing loose with the definition of the "legislature".

[Belsnickel]

I don't agree with the decision. I like independent commissions for redistricting because the amount of gerrymandering that occurs around this country is ridiculously out of control. I also like the idea of the people having the same power to pass a law as the legislature via ballot initiatives. I don't think that the people being able to pass laws in that manner is a good enough situation where they can pass on a part of the legislative authority in that manner.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2015, 04:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think that the people being able to pass laws in that manner is a good enough situation where they can pass on a part of the legislative authority in that manner.

I initially agreed, but is it not up to each individual state to determine how their legislative authority is set up? If they grant their people equal power through a ballot referendum, which is not an easy task, do their actions not count in a similar fashion?

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2015, 04:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I initially agreed, but is it not up to each individual state to determine how their legislative authority is set up? If they grant their people equal power through a ballot referendum, which is not an easy task, do their actions not count in a similar fashion?

The question I would have is how far the ballot authority of the people extends. Do the people have the same appropriating authority as the legislature? Can they really do anything that the legislature can through the ballot? If the people truly have all of the same authorities as the legislature then I can see it, but I doubt that is the case.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2015, 05:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The question I would have is how far the ballot authority of the people extends. Do the people have the same appropriating authority as the legislature? Can they really do anything that the legislature can through the ballot? If the people truly have all of the same authorities as the legislature then I can see it, but I doubt that is the case.

This is the portion of their constitution in question:

“the legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.”

If the legislature can make any law concerning how they redistrict, would that not mean that the people, via referendum, can make any law concerning redistricting?

It's also interesting that this law was passed in 2000 and it seems like it wasn't until 2012 that they then took issue with the 2010 redistricting.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-29-2015, 07:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is the portion of their constitution in question:

“the legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.”

If the legislature can make any law concerning how they redistrict, would that not mean that the people, via referendum, can make any law concerning redistricting?

It's also interesting that this law was passed in 2000 and it seems like it wasn't until 2012 that they then took issue with the 2010 redistricting.

I think I see what you like about it.  The People reserve the power to propose, and enact or reject...   It would seem to me that the power to propose would be rather difficult, from a layman's perspective, however, even a layman could draw enough attention to get passed legislation or amendment onto the ballot for review by popular vote.

The Federal Government was (in my opinion) designed to operate that way.  Now, we have a congress, Supreme Court, and President that seem to act independently of whatever the popular vote in America may indicate as the proper course of action. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2015, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Federal Government was (in my opinion) designed to operate that way.  Now, we have a congress, Supreme Court, and President that seem to act independently of whatever the popular vote in America may indicate as the proper course of action. 

Ideally the House would be held more accountable by the people, but gerrymandering has essentially guaranteed a job for anyone who remains on the party's, not the people's, good side.

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2015, 07:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is the portion of their constitution in question:

“the legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.”

If the legislature can make any law concerning how they redistrict, would that not mean that the people, via referendum, can make any law concerning redistricting?

It's also interesting that this law was passed in 2000 and it seems like it wasn't until 2012 that they then took issue with the 2010 redistricting.

So, in looking further into this all, I agree with the ruling. The passage you quote here states that the people can create an amendment to the state constitution, which is what occurred to create this commission. The U.S. Constitution rests the authority for the time and manner of elections on the state legislatures, but the way that districts are determined is not something covered (and in fact districts are not even required).

The people stuck it to their representatives and they did it right.

[*michaelsean*]

I also would like to see gerrymandering go away, but could someone explain how this goes to the SC? Maybe it's different, but 10 or so years ago, NJ senator Torricelli was forced to drop out of the race, but it was past the date when someone new could be added. Their SC Court just ignored that, and said it wasn't fair. They took it to the SC, and the court refused to hear it, (including the conservatives although reversing would have meant a Republican win) because election laws were up to the states. (Except President because it's a national election.)

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2015, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I also would like to see gerrymandering go away, but could someone explain how this goes to the SC?  Maybe it's different, but 10 or so years ago, NJ senator Torricelli was forced to drop out of the race, but it was past the date when someone new could be added.  Their SC Court just ignored that, and said it wasn't fair.  They took it to the SC, and the court refused to hear it, (including the conservatives although reversing would have meant a Republican win) because election laws were up to the states.  (Except President because it's a national election.)

That wasn't a federal issue where this was. That was an issue of how NJ chooses to run their election for senator. The power over the process for federal elections is held by the states. If NJ's Supreme Court said it was ok, then it is ok. There was no quesiton regarding the Constitution.

The Arizona case was an issue of interpreting the Constitution.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 03:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That wasn't a federal issue where this was. That was an issue of how NJ chooses to run their election for senator. The power over the process for federal elections is held by the states. If NJ's Supreme Court said it was ok, then it is ok. There was no quesiton regarding the Constitution.

The Arizona case was an issue of interpreting the Constitution.

Oh I thought they were talking the AZ Constitution.

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2015, 03:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I thought they were talking the AZ Constitution.

They were arguing that because the U.S. Constitution gives the power to decide the time and manner of the elections to the legislature for the state, that is where it must remain. The thing is, the Constitution doesn't mention the districts.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2015, 03:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I thought they were talking the AZ Constitution.

Basically what what Matt said. The question was whether or not the power of the people to enact any act equivalent to their state legislature, which is a power given to them in their constitution, meant they count as their legislature when interpreting the US constitution and its granting of House of Reps election powers to each of the states' legislatures.

So they had to decide either a) the people are not a "legislature" and are not given that power by the US constitution or b) the people do act as the legislature so the US constitution does give them that power.

[Harmening]

These restrictions, which come from the Book of Leviticus, have no barring on life in the 21st century. People who read the Bible and just accept everything word for word miss the point of the books that make it up. It's not enough to know WHAT Leviticus says. You should ask yourself WHY it says it.
Leviticus is interesting, and quite useful, from an academic standpoint. It gives us a peak into a mindset and lifestyle of pre-Common Era/AD Judeans, a culture that's long-since vanished. As a guide for living in the contemporary world? That's just silly. It would be like replacing the criminal code with the Code of Hammurabi. Being historically significant doesn't make it applicable to the times we're living in.

So let's try to understand Leviticus. You have a small tribe of Jews in the middle of the desert. Surrounded by enemies on all sides. Survival is going to be the community's top priority. So shellfish? Out. Why? Well shellfish eat a lot of bacteria, and if you don't cook them right eating them can be deadly. Same with pigs, actually. So they're out too. Homosexuality? Communal survival starts with the next generation. So be fruitful and multiply. Any sexual activity that can't result in pregnancy is going to be discouraged.
Leviticus is a guide for communal survival in a harsh environment in the ancient world. It is not a timeless code of conduct.

Now some might ask "well what about condemnations of homosexuality outside of Leviticus?" Sodom and Gomorrah are prime examples. That's a case where G-d destroyed two entire cities because of homosexuality! Except He didn't.
It's a common misconception that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. They weren't. G-d destroyed them because their populaces were jerks who turned strangers away.
The Bible, perhaps sensing that some people might take the wrong message from the Sodom and Gomorrah story, is kind enough to clarify.

Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

So now, if you're a Christian, that just leaves Paul as the one carrying the anti-homosexual message. Except even he agrees that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality.

Hebrews 13:2
"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it."

That's in clear reference to the Sodom and Gomorrah story where Lot, the nephew of Abraham, is living in Sodom. Lot is visited by angels disguised as men, and they stay in his house. The people of Sodom, being jerks, don't like that he's letting strangers stay with him and demand they leave.

Now if you're still determined to harp on the homosexual thing, yes. Paul makes it clear elsewhere that homosexuality is supposedly a sin. Except...Jesus doesn't. Jesus never mentions homosexuality. At least not directly...

Matthew 19:11-12
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

That's from Jesus. And the word we must concern ourselves with is "eunuch." Today it has a very specific meaning. A man who has been castrated. Back in 1st century Judea though? It had a broader meaning. It referred to any man who didn't sleep with women and, in fact, was known to be used in reference to homosexuals.
So when Jesus talks about "eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others" he refers to men who have been castrated. "[E]unuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" are the priests who practised celibacy.
And "eunuchs who have been so from birth"? Men born without the desire to sleep with women. Spoken in a time when "eunuch" was a common term for a gay man. I'm no Christian but I have to think that Jesus' own words trumps Paul's when it comes to what qualifies as a sin or not.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-30-2015, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They were arguing that because the U.S. Constitution gives the power to decide the time and manner of the elections to the legislature for the state, that is where it must remain. The thing is, the Constitution doesn't mention the districts.

And, in my opinion, they should not have mentioned "districts", as that was something that someone came up with, at a later time, to benefit a specific individual, rather than the common good.  If you ask me, giving weight to one highly populated area, over the rest of the territory, is just un-democratic.  Popular vote should always rule, electoral should be thrown out, at all levels.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-01-2015, 08:11 PM)Harmening Wrote: These restrictions, which come from the Book of Leviticus, have no barring on life in the 21st century. People who read the Bible and just accept everything word for word miss the point of the books that make it up. It's not enough to know WHAT Leviticus says. You should ask yourself WHY it says it.
Leviticus is interesting, and quite useful, from an academic standpoint. It gives us a peak into a mindset and lifestyle of pre-Common Era/AD Judeans, a culture that's long-since vanished. As a guide for living in the contemporary world? That's just silly. It would be like replacing the criminal code with the Code of Hammurabi. Being historically significant doesn't make it applicable to the times we're living in.

So let's try to understand Leviticus. You have a small tribe of Jews in the middle of the desert. Surrounded by enemies on all sides. Survival is going to be the community's top priority. So shellfish? Out. Why? Well shellfish eat a lot of bacteria, and if you don't cook them right eating them can be deadly. Same with pigs, actually. So they're out too. Homosexuality? Communal survival starts with the next generation. So be fruitful and multiply. Any sexual activity that can't result in pregnancy is going to be discouraged.
Leviticus is a guide for communal survival in a harsh environment in the ancient world. It is not a timeless code of conduct.

Now some might ask "well what about condemnations of homosexuality outside of Leviticus?" Sodom and Gomorrah are prime examples. That's a case where G-d destroyed two entire cities because of homosexuality! Except He didn't.
It's a common misconception that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. They weren't. G-d destroyed them because their populaces were jerks who turned strangers away.
The Bible, perhaps sensing that some people might take the wrong message from the Sodom and Gomorrah story, is kind enough to clarify.

Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

So now, if you're a Christian, that just leaves Paul as the one carrying the anti-homosexual message. Except even he agrees that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality.

Hebrews 13:2
"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it."

That's in clear reference to the Sodom and Gomorrah story where Lot, the nephew of Abraham, is living in Sodom. Lot is visited by angels disguised as men, and they stay in his house. The people of Sodom, being jerks, don't like that he's letting strangers stay with him and demand they leave.

Now if you're still determined to harp on the homosexual thing, yes. Paul makes it clear elsewhere that homosexuality is supposedly a sin. Except...Jesus doesn't. Jesus never mentions homosexuality. At least not directly...

Matthew 19:11-12
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

That's from Jesus. And the word we must concern ourselves with is "eunuch." Today it has a very specific meaning. A man who has been castrated. Back in 1st century Judea though? It had a broader meaning. It referred to any man who didn't sleep with women and, in fact, was known to be used in reference to homosexuals.
So when Jesus talks about "eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others" he refers to men who have been castrated. "[E]unuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" are the priests who practised celibacy.
And "eunuchs who have been so from birth"? Men born without the desire to sleep with women. Spoken in a time when "eunuch" was a common term for a gay man. I'm no Christian but I have to think that Jesus' own words trumps Paul's when it comes to what qualifies as a sin or not.

Another thread perhaps?