Gerrymandering has always struck me as one of the most openly criminal practices. I'm hopeful for your home state, and hopeful for more awareness so more can be done to combat this long standing and wholly undemocratic scheme.
SCOTUS decisions in which a handful of judges usurped the power to protect partisan gerrymandering (e.g., in South Carolina earlier this year) are some of the most shameful and egregiously unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions ever issued.
Mere public servants (judges and state legislators) have blatantly robbed and defrauded us of our sovereignty by doing things they know violates our Constitution. By discriminating against voters based on their past political speech (votes), public servants are deliberately trampling all over our First Amendment rights and freedoms, including the freedom of speech and right to assemble (freedom of association). Public servants are discriminating against sovereign citizens because of their political viewpoints and the content of their political speech. Every SCOTUS justice knows that such misconduct (by state officials and SCOTUS justices supporting them) violates the privileges and immunities of citizens under our Constitution.
Everyone should read the dissent by Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor in Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-422) beginning with the following paragraph:
“Governments,” the Declaration of Independence states, “deriv[e] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” The Constitution begins: “We the People of the United States.” The Gettysburg Address (almost) ends: “[G]overnment of the people, by the people, for the people.” If there is a single idea that made our Nation (and that our Nation commended to the world), it is this one: The people are sovereign. The “power,” James Madison wrote, “is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”
The dissent emphasized this crucial aspect of our Constitution:
"Election day [ ] links the people to their representatives, and gives the people their sovereign power. That day is the foundation of democratic governance."
The Rucho dissent also quoted this language from the majority opinion in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015):
“The core principle of republican government,” is “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”
The Arizona majority also quoted Hamilton: “[T]he true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”
One of the crimes for which the federal government currently is prosecuting Trump fits these state officials (and the SCOTUS justices who conspired with other state's legislatures) perfectly:
"If two or more persons" (including state legislators or federal judges) “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” (including any voter) “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” them “by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of” their “having so exercised” any such “right or privilege,” they commit criminal conspiracy. 18 U.S.C. 241.
Another federal crime fits them all even better:
"Whoever" (including any legislator or judge) acts “under color of any law” or “custom” to “willfully” deprive "any person" (including any voter) “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by” any provision of the “Constitution” or federal “laws” commits a crime. 18 U.S.C. 242. No action or custom of legislators or judges is exempt.
SCOTUS justices even know they are committing the foregoing crimes:
“Even judges” clearly “can be punished criminally” under 18 U.S.C. 241 or 242 “for willful deprivations of constitutional rights.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976). Accord Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28, n.5 (1980); Briscoe v. Lahue, 460 U.S. 325, 345, n.32 (1983); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880) (criminal prosecution of judge for abuse of official power).
Tim, what I fail to understand is how the Ohio Supreme Court has found the current status unconstitutional 7 times and nothing changes. How can this happen? Can you or someone please explain it? Does it mean we can just ignore what the court rules and nothing happens to us?
Somebody needs to complain to the U.S. Department of Justice. If Ohio's Supreme Court says the legislators' conduct is unconstitutional and they continue to do it, they cannot claim they did not know. Their conduct is criminal under 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 242.
The Fourteenth Amendment is perfectly clear: "No state" official has any power to "make or enforce any [purported] law" that "abridge[s] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or "deny to any person" fully "equal protection of the laws." Gerrymandering is designed to (and necessarily does) violate the Fourteenth Amendment (which incorporates the First Amendment).
Partisan gerrymandering is, by definition, unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Worse still, it is discrimination because of the content of political speech. Voting is quintessential political speech. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote (for the SCOTUS majority) such “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011).
Partisan gerrymanderers “target[ing]” voters for their “particular views” commit “blatant” and “egregious” “violation[s] of the First Amendment.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). “Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society;” “it is especially important” that SCOTUS emphasize “that the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination.” Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388, 399 (2019) (Alito, J., concurring).
The DOJ might be reluctant to prosecute gerrymandering state officials. Their first thought will be that the current SCOTUS majority supports partisan gerrymandering. The implicit assumption is that what SCOTUS says is the law of the land. That clearly is not true, and the Constitution says so. No quantity or quality of judges has any power to knowingly violate (or purport to authorize anyone else to violate) our Constitution.
We all should keep in mind something that two SCOTUS chief justices writing for two unanimous courts repeatedly emphasized. Chief Justice Marshall wrote it in 1821 and Chief Justice Burger quoted it in 1980. They were writing about federal judges, in particular, but their statement applies to all public officials. Any public servants who “usurp” powers “not given” them by our Constitution commit “treason to the Constitution.” United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, n.19 (1980) (Burger, C.J.) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)).
The current SCOTUS justices who acted to support partisan gerrymandering committed treason to our Constitution. Almost all current SCOTUS justices have emphasized the reason that such misconduct constitutes such treason. In 2022, for example, Justice Gorsuch in a concurring opinion in United States v. Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. 159 (2022) quoted Chief Justice Marshall, and they both emphasized the most fundamental and important principles in our entire Constitution:
Under "our Constitution" and "its original understanding" every part of the federal government “deriv[es] its powers directly” from "the sovereign people" (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 404-405 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.)). Every part of the federal government "is empowered to act only in accord with the terms of the written Constitution the people have approved" (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176-177 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.)).
“No person” may be “deprived” by any judge of “life” or any “liberty” or “property” except with all “due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. No judge or court is the supreme law of the land. “[T]he supreme Law of the Land” includes our “Constitution” and federal “Laws,” and all “Judges” are “bound thereby;” moreover, all legislators and “all executive and judicial Officers” (state or federal) are “bound” to “support” our “Constitution.” Art. VI.
All federal “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold” (and use) “their Offices” only “during” (and for) “good Behaviour." Art. III, §1. Federal “judicial Power” cannot “extend” any further than permitted “under” our “Constitution” and federal “Laws.” Art. III, §2. Accord 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (“support and defend” our “Constitution” with “true faith and allegiance”); 28 U.S.C. § 453 (“faithfully and impartially” perform “all” judicial “duties” “under” our “Constitution,” including “administer[ing] justice without respect to persons”). Federal law includes federal statutes, as well as federal court rules governing procedure and evidence.
Federal judges have only such “powers” as the people “delegated” to courts "by the Constitution.” Amend. X. Obviously, all "powers" relevant to the First Amendment were "reserved" to "the people." Id. The outside limits of the powers of the federal government (including federal courts) were set forth in Article I (recall that the framers of our Constitution repeatedly emphasized that they excepted Congress to be (by far) the most powerful branch and the judiciary to be (by far) the weakest branch.
“All [federal] legislative Powers” were “vested” in “Congress.” Art. I, §1. “Congress” was delegated the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper” to carry out “all” and any “Powers vested” in any part of federal “Government” or "in any Department or Officer thereof" (which includes courts and judges). Art. I, §8. But not even Congress was delegated any power to "make" any "Laws" that were not “necessary and proper” for the purposes stated in the Preamble. Id.
Putting Article I and Amendment X together, the only "powers" that were "delegated to" federal courts (including SCOTUS) "by the Constitution" were those
powers that were “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in federal courts. Id.
“Article III of the Constitution establishe[d]” a “Judiciary” that must be “independent” of all except the law and which has the “duty to say what the law is” governing “particular cases and controversies;” judges “who apply [a] rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212, 225 (2016) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.)). Courts’ “responsibility” is “to say what the law is and afford the people the neutral forum for their disputes that they expect and deserve.” Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 631 (2019) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
The First Amendment was written and ratified to re-emphasize that certain laws most certainly could not be necessary or proper. It was written and ratified to re-emphasize that certain powers most certainly were not delegated to Congress (so they clearly were not delegated to any part of federal government).
Powers that expressly were not delegated to federal government included the power to take ANY action "abridging the freedom of speech" (e.g., for voting) or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," e.g., for voting. Amend. I. Partisan gerrymandering (and SCOTUS decisions supporting it) clearly, egregiously and irrefutably violates our Constitution.
Susan, that's a great document, but I can't see that it answers my question. Jack, it sounds like someone would have to file a complaint with the US Department of Justice. If I'm interpreting your comments correctly, do you know if this has happened, and if not, why not? Where the hell is the Democratic party? There's no one who has standing to file a complaint? And if a complaint has been filed, I still ask, where the hell is the Democratic party? Amazing.
The big argument supposedly supporting gerrymandering is that even the framers of the Constitution did it. A super easy response to that is that they also enacted the Sedition Act of 1798. Now, however, everyone agrees that law blatantly violated the First Amendment. And guess how it did so most blatantly: by targeting speech for its political content and (even worse) by discriminating based on viewpoint—exactly like partisan gerrymandering.
The enactment of the Sedition Act of 1798 highlighted another crucial First Amendment fact: SCOTUS simply did not enforce the First Amendment for a very, very long time. So SCOTUS justices who (now) rely on the argument that gerrymandering started back then KNOW that they are deceiving people. They KNOW their own decisions under the First Amendment prove partisan gerrymandering is blatantly unconstitutional.
Nobody needs standing for a criminal prosecution. Standing is required only for civil cases. Organizations do sue to oppose gerrymandering. But I suspect that they haven't thought about the arguments I've presented below analogizing gerrymandering to the Sedition Act of 1798.
The big trump cards played by gerrymandering politicians are that (1) gerrymandering was done even by people involved in writing or ratifying the original Constitution or the First Amendment and (2) SCOTUS has said gerrymandering is ok. Regarding the second issue, SCOTUS's decisions are so weekly reasoned that they are legally frivolous and obviously false (they rely on the first issue). Regarding the first issue, gerrymandering needs to be attacked with a better appreciation of how politicians did things back then that today we know blatantly violate our Constitution.
18 U.S.C. 242 (which I quoted in another comment regarding this issue) is a federal criminal statute that is tailor made for what these legislators are doing. It provides for prosecution of people who are abusing the pretense that what they are doing is legal. The words "color of law" and "custom" in that statute refer to exactly what they (and SCOTUS justices supporting partisan gerrymandering) are doing. People who support gerrymandering do so in large part because it has been a custom for hundreds of years. No matter how long or widespread it has been as a custom, it is criminal. It violates the rights, privileges and immunities of voters--and judges and legislators know it does (that's what "willful" means).
I have no idea what anyone has tried to do beyond taking cases up the litigation ladder to SCOTUS. Previously, SCOTUS supported the gerrymanders. But I don’t see how they could do so now if confronted with their own First Amendment decisions.
I know you addressed this to Tim but here is some information that can assist you: The Citizens Not Politicians website explains this in the section FACT: ISSUE 1 CREATES ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXIST
No one to enforce it is my understanding, like anti-segregation laws in the 60s. Biden, and probably Harris, aren't the type to send in federal troops to make this happen, and it's unclear if it'd work anyway. This is how we know that Trump can succeed with his authoritarian impulses: the law becomes a bluff once you call it
I read somewhere that $400 million has been spent in Ohio for this election. That amount is absurd. Add gerrymandering and what do Ohioan’s receive in return? The schools that could have been updated, highways and bridges, opioid rehabilitation, hospitals built, etc. It’s not capitalism to spend so much on elections. It is something entirely different. Pulling for Ohio and Ohioans to make the right decision.
Good morning, Linda. It was so good of you to stop by today. My eyes filled automatically with appreciation for knowing you and the feeling that we have put our hands and hearts together.
Fern, YOU are the wordsmith! I miss your posts (HCR) so always happy when you share here on Dr. Snyder’s site. Thank you for your kindness and I’m so grateful to have gotten to meet you through Substack!
Feeling so very anxious today, but it’s comforting knowing that there are so many people who are not discouraged and keep working to keep our democracy, as Dr. Snyder and others are doing—it helps me to read the comments because it is reassuring knowing there are people like you. As my husband says “not enough of them” but I’m going to keep optimistic—the alternative is too overwhelming. Best!🗽☮️💟
Very helpful, thank you. We have to be brave and stand up for each person's vote, and if the gerrymandering favors our side, we have to correct that too. When asked about her main values, Vice President Harris answered they were "fairness and justice." I'm with her.
Thank you. I live in Michigan and we were able to pass a ballot initiative creating a commission made up of ordinary citizens to draw fair redistricting maps. It is a more complicated process than you might think. The process had its hiccups but resulted in much fairer maps. Be very glad Ohio is a state that has ballot initiatives that allows voters to bypass a gerrymandered legislature and enact real changes to the constitution and/or laws of the state such as fair redistricting and reproductive freedom. Unfortunately not all states do.
In Florida we almost need a lawyer to understand some of the proposed amendments as the wording is so tricky. Trump and his lackeys will spend Election Day in West Palm Beach Convention Center and roads are already closed around the area.
Presidential historian Allan Lichtman is standing by his September prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris will defeat former President Donald Trump in the race for the White House. https://youtu.be/K5A_UKLe5uo
I grew up in Nashville, TN. Nashville has remained a blue city in a red state, and until recently it was represented for many years in Congress by a Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper. The TN legislature has a Republican super majority, and recently it redrew the Nashville district and divided it into three long skinny districts that reach out into rural areas from the heart of Nashville, diluting the votes of urban Democrats so that each of these three districts would become Republican majority districts. It worked.
I heard former Representative Jim Cooper on a radio program saying that he had repeatedly warned city officials in Nashville that this would happen, and they dismissed him, saying, "Oh come on, they would never do that." But they did.
"It would be a ludicrous map by any definition. What makes it an outrageous map from a civil rights standpoint is that it exists solely to silence the voters in this city, one of the most racially and culturally diverse in Tennessee. Under the new redistricting plan, Republicans in the legislature kept intact the counties in virtually all other House districts, but they carved Metropolitan Davidson County into three districts. Each one begins in Nashville and extends far into the overwhelmingly white surrounding counties."--Margaret Renkl, in the NYT
Shannon, the information I've included in my comments show how the gerrymanderers violated our Constitution and committed federal offenses. Feel free to send that information to someone who can use it in TN.
It’s obvious that the swindlers-cheaters-liars are doing their best to exhaust we the PEOPLE over many years until they’ve grabbed all power and destroyed our democracy. Trying to keep up with all the disgusting cheating is a full time job for everyone. I’ll pray that Ohioans aren’t fooled and they get their fair districting. The rest of us can only hope that we get the chance to address this in our state.
Thank you, Dr. Snyder, for honoring Ohio with your column today, right before the "Election Day". This is so well described, I will be posting it on my FB page for those who are still confused, as Frank LaRose and his cabal hope....we have voted two previous times overwhelmingly to create "Fair Districts" - and those Republicans who insist on maintaining their ill-begotten gains have found ways to block the will of the voters. Much resides on tomorrow's results.
From Canada: thank you for your informed and insightful analysis of the American and global situations. I strongly hope that Issue 1 passes. Reading On Freedom, most grateful!
You forgot to mention the wording on the ballot itself--I live abroad and voted absentee a few weeks ago, so I'd heard nothing about this amendment. I am an intelligent reader I swear, but I started reading this thing and thought voting for it would ALLOW gerrymandering. Had to look it up to find out the opposite.
The naked manipulation of the Ohio Republicans, not to mention the VERY thinly veiled nods to conspiracy theories (visible in Issue 1 and in last summer's August attempt to raise the threshold for Constitutional amendments passing, justified by invoking "special interests pouring money into Ohio") is truly nauseating
Rotten boroughs & Electoral Butchery-Gerrymandering of voting districts
Thank you, Dr Snyder for explaining Gerrymandering!
Gerrymandering seems like a holdover of Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised African American politicians and voters. It is the only way Republicans can win elections because their platforms are nonexistent and serve their need for unchecked power, control and greed.
All of us will keep a close watch on the Ohio voters rejection of Electoral Butchery. Thank you to the Ohio press for their expedient clarification on this, empowering Ohio citizens to make their vote meaningful in this and future elections, as well as providing hope for other states whose useless politicians require Rotten Boroughs to be elected to power.
Perhaps we all should digitally subscribe to these local Ohio newspapers!!!
Many thanks for this detailed account of what's been going on in Ohio, and do keep us updated. I know we can read about these things in newspapers, but you bring a nice personal touch to it, which I enjoy very much.
This election is unique in American history -- unique in that the loser is likely to be jailed. In one case, the jailing will come after due process. In the other, it will come after a dictator orders it.
Gerrymandering has always struck me as one of the most openly criminal practices. I'm hopeful for your home state, and hopeful for more awareness so more can be done to combat this long standing and wholly undemocratic scheme.
SCOTUS decisions in which a handful of judges usurped the power to protect partisan gerrymandering (e.g., in South Carolina earlier this year) are some of the most shameful and egregiously unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions ever issued.
Mere public servants (judges and state legislators) have blatantly robbed and defrauded us of our sovereignty by doing things they know violates our Constitution. By discriminating against voters based on their past political speech (votes), public servants are deliberately trampling all over our First Amendment rights and freedoms, including the freedom of speech and right to assemble (freedom of association). Public servants are discriminating against sovereign citizens because of their political viewpoints and the content of their political speech. Every SCOTUS justice knows that such misconduct (by state officials and SCOTUS justices supporting them) violates the privileges and immunities of citizens under our Constitution.
Everyone should read the dissent by Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor in Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-422) beginning with the following paragraph:
“Governments,” the Declaration of Independence states, “deriv[e] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” The Constitution begins: “We the People of the United States.” The Gettysburg Address (almost) ends: “[G]overnment of the people, by the people, for the people.” If there is a single idea that made our Nation (and that our Nation commended to the world), it is this one: The people are sovereign. The “power,” James Madison wrote, “is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”
The dissent emphasized this crucial aspect of our Constitution:
"Election day [ ] links the people to their representatives, and gives the people their sovereign power. That day is the foundation of democratic governance."
The Rucho dissent also quoted this language from the majority opinion in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015):
“The core principle of republican government,” is “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”
The Arizona majority also quoted Hamilton: “[T]he true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”
One of the crimes for which the federal government currently is prosecuting Trump fits these state officials (and the SCOTUS justices who conspired with other state's legislatures) perfectly:
"If two or more persons" (including state legislators or federal judges) “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” (including any voter) “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” them “by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of” their “having so exercised” any such “right or privilege,” they commit criminal conspiracy. 18 U.S.C. 241.
Another federal crime fits them all even better:
"Whoever" (including any legislator or judge) acts “under color of any law” or “custom” to “willfully” deprive "any person" (including any voter) “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by” any provision of the “Constitution” or federal “laws” commits a crime. 18 U.S.C. 242. No action or custom of legislators or judges is exempt.
SCOTUS justices even know they are committing the foregoing crimes:
“Even judges” clearly “can be punished criminally” under 18 U.S.C. 241 or 242 “for willful deprivations of constitutional rights.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976). Accord Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28, n.5 (1980); Briscoe v. Lahue, 460 U.S. 325, 345, n.32 (1983); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880) (criminal prosecution of judge for abuse of official power).
Tim, what I fail to understand is how the Ohio Supreme Court has found the current status unconstitutional 7 times and nothing changes. How can this happen? Can you or someone please explain it? Does it mean we can just ignore what the court rules and nothing happens to us?
Somebody needs to complain to the U.S. Department of Justice. If Ohio's Supreme Court says the legislators' conduct is unconstitutional and they continue to do it, they cannot claim they did not know. Their conduct is criminal under 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 242.
The Fourteenth Amendment is perfectly clear: "No state" official has any power to "make or enforce any [purported] law" that "abridge[s] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or "deny to any person" fully "equal protection of the laws." Gerrymandering is designed to (and necessarily does) violate the Fourteenth Amendment (which incorporates the First Amendment).
Partisan gerrymandering is, by definition, unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Worse still, it is discrimination because of the content of political speech. Voting is quintessential political speech. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote (for the SCOTUS majority) such “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011).
Partisan gerrymanderers “target[ing]” voters for their “particular views” commit “blatant” and “egregious” “violation[s] of the First Amendment.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). “Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society;” “it is especially important” that SCOTUS emphasize “that the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination.” Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388, 399 (2019) (Alito, J., concurring).
The DOJ might be reluctant to prosecute gerrymandering state officials. Their first thought will be that the current SCOTUS majority supports partisan gerrymandering. The implicit assumption is that what SCOTUS says is the law of the land. That clearly is not true, and the Constitution says so. No quantity or quality of judges has any power to knowingly violate (or purport to authorize anyone else to violate) our Constitution.
We all should keep in mind something that two SCOTUS chief justices writing for two unanimous courts repeatedly emphasized. Chief Justice Marshall wrote it in 1821 and Chief Justice Burger quoted it in 1980. They were writing about federal judges, in particular, but their statement applies to all public officials. Any public servants who “usurp” powers “not given” them by our Constitution commit “treason to the Constitution.” United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, n.19 (1980) (Burger, C.J.) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)).
The current SCOTUS justices who acted to support partisan gerrymandering committed treason to our Constitution. Almost all current SCOTUS justices have emphasized the reason that such misconduct constitutes such treason. In 2022, for example, Justice Gorsuch in a concurring opinion in United States v. Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. 159 (2022) quoted Chief Justice Marshall, and they both emphasized the most fundamental and important principles in our entire Constitution:
Under "our Constitution" and "its original understanding" every part of the federal government “deriv[es] its powers directly” from "the sovereign people" (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 404-405 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.)). Every part of the federal government "is empowered to act only in accord with the terms of the written Constitution the people have approved" (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176-177 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.)).
“No person” may be “deprived” by any judge of “life” or any “liberty” or “property” except with all “due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. No judge or court is the supreme law of the land. “[T]he supreme Law of the Land” includes our “Constitution” and federal “Laws,” and all “Judges” are “bound thereby;” moreover, all legislators and “all executive and judicial Officers” (state or federal) are “bound” to “support” our “Constitution.” Art. VI.
All federal “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold” (and use) “their Offices” only “during” (and for) “good Behaviour." Art. III, §1. Federal “judicial Power” cannot “extend” any further than permitted “under” our “Constitution” and federal “Laws.” Art. III, §2. Accord 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (“support and defend” our “Constitution” with “true faith and allegiance”); 28 U.S.C. § 453 (“faithfully and impartially” perform “all” judicial “duties” “under” our “Constitution,” including “administer[ing] justice without respect to persons”). Federal law includes federal statutes, as well as federal court rules governing procedure and evidence.
Federal judges have only such “powers” as the people “delegated” to courts "by the Constitution.” Amend. X. Obviously, all "powers" relevant to the First Amendment were "reserved" to "the people." Id. The outside limits of the powers of the federal government (including federal courts) were set forth in Article I (recall that the framers of our Constitution repeatedly emphasized that they excepted Congress to be (by far) the most powerful branch and the judiciary to be (by far) the weakest branch.
“All [federal] legislative Powers” were “vested” in “Congress.” Art. I, §1. “Congress” was delegated the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper” to carry out “all” and any “Powers vested” in any part of federal “Government” or "in any Department or Officer thereof" (which includes courts and judges). Art. I, §8. But not even Congress was delegated any power to "make" any "Laws" that were not “necessary and proper” for the purposes stated in the Preamble. Id.
Putting Article I and Amendment X together, the only "powers" that were "delegated to" federal courts (including SCOTUS) "by the Constitution" were those
powers that were “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in federal courts. Id.
“Article III of the Constitution establishe[d]” a “Judiciary” that must be “independent” of all except the law and which has the “duty to say what the law is” governing “particular cases and controversies;” judges “who apply [a] rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212, 225 (2016) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.)). Courts’ “responsibility” is “to say what the law is and afford the people the neutral forum for their disputes that they expect and deserve.” Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 631 (2019) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
The First Amendment was written and ratified to re-emphasize that certain laws most certainly could not be necessary or proper. It was written and ratified to re-emphasize that certain powers most certainly were not delegated to Congress (so they clearly were not delegated to any part of federal government).
Powers that expressly were not delegated to federal government included the power to take ANY action "abridging the freedom of speech" (e.g., for voting) or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," e.g., for voting. Amend. I. Partisan gerrymandering (and SCOTUS decisions supporting it) clearly, egregiously and irrefutably violates our Constitution.
Susan, that's a great document, but I can't see that it answers my question. Jack, it sounds like someone would have to file a complaint with the US Department of Justice. If I'm interpreting your comments correctly, do you know if this has happened, and if not, why not? Where the hell is the Democratic party? There's no one who has standing to file a complaint? And if a complaint has been filed, I still ask, where the hell is the Democratic party? Amazing.
The big argument supposedly supporting gerrymandering is that even the framers of the Constitution did it. A super easy response to that is that they also enacted the Sedition Act of 1798. Now, however, everyone agrees that law blatantly violated the First Amendment. And guess how it did so most blatantly: by targeting speech for its political content and (even worse) by discriminating based on viewpoint—exactly like partisan gerrymandering.
The enactment of the Sedition Act of 1798 highlighted another crucial First Amendment fact: SCOTUS simply did not enforce the First Amendment for a very, very long time. So SCOTUS justices who (now) rely on the argument that gerrymandering started back then KNOW that they are deceiving people. They KNOW their own decisions under the First Amendment prove partisan gerrymandering is blatantly unconstitutional.
Nobody needs standing for a criminal prosecution. Standing is required only for civil cases. Organizations do sue to oppose gerrymandering. But I suspect that they haven't thought about the arguments I've presented below analogizing gerrymandering to the Sedition Act of 1798.
The big trump cards played by gerrymandering politicians are that (1) gerrymandering was done even by people involved in writing or ratifying the original Constitution or the First Amendment and (2) SCOTUS has said gerrymandering is ok. Regarding the second issue, SCOTUS's decisions are so weekly reasoned that they are legally frivolous and obviously false (they rely on the first issue). Regarding the first issue, gerrymandering needs to be attacked with a better appreciation of how politicians did things back then that today we know blatantly violate our Constitution.
18 U.S.C. 242 (which I quoted in another comment regarding this issue) is a federal criminal statute that is tailor made for what these legislators are doing. It provides for prosecution of people who are abusing the pretense that what they are doing is legal. The words "color of law" and "custom" in that statute refer to exactly what they (and SCOTUS justices supporting partisan gerrymandering) are doing. People who support gerrymandering do so in large part because it has been a custom for hundreds of years. No matter how long or widespread it has been as a custom, it is criminal. It violates the rights, privileges and immunities of voters--and judges and legislators know it does (that's what "willful" means).
I have no idea what anyone has tried to do beyond taking cases up the litigation ladder to SCOTUS. Previously, SCOTUS supported the gerrymanders. But I don’t see how they could do so now if confronted with their own First Amendment decisions.
I know you addressed this to Tim but here is some information that can assist you: The Citizens Not Politicians website explains this in the section FACT: ISSUE 1 CREATES ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXIST
https://www.citizensnotpoliticians.org/facts-about-issue-1-the-politicians-dont-want-you-to-know/
No one to enforce it is my understanding, like anti-segregation laws in the 60s. Biden, and probably Harris, aren't the type to send in federal troops to make this happen, and it's unclear if it'd work anyway. This is how we know that Trump can succeed with his authoritarian impulses: the law becomes a bluff once you call it
This is how we know that Trump can succeed with his authoritarian impulses: the law becomes a bluff once you call it.
You've said it all.
I read somewhere that $400 million has been spent in Ohio for this election. That amount is absurd. Add gerrymandering and what do Ohioan’s receive in return? The schools that could have been updated, highways and bridges, opioid rehabilitation, hospitals built, etc. It’s not capitalism to spend so much on elections. It is something entirely different. Pulling for Ohio and Ohioans to make the right decision.
G is for Gerrymander
G is for Gerry, Madison’s Veep, who mandered his state, his power to keep;
E’s for Enough of these crazy-quilt maps, driving our system too close to collapse,
R is for Redmap, the GOP’s sweep of mandered statehouses while Dems were asleep;
R’s for each Rep, snug and smug in our House, safe from our vote, whether hero or louse;
Y is for 200 Years—way too many—we must slay the gerries by Two-Thousand-Twenty!
M’s for McGrady (and John and Blust), bills at the ready: “Reform or Bust!”
A is for Angry, our voters aware that polls safe from ballots just really don’t care;
N’s for Nonpartisan hands on the pens: don’t let those foxes keep guarding the hens!
D is for Data, so dull (but so naughty), mapmakers must not know who’s in which party;
E’s for Elections, democracy’s soul; voters, not gerries or polls, must control;
R’s for Reforms that no longer can wait: let’s drive Gerry out of our Old North State.
Gerrymander poetry ─by J. Bremer (League of Women Voters)
https://my.lwv.org/sites/default/files/leagues/wysiwyg/North%20Carolina/gerrymander-poetry.pdf
Brilliant, Fern! Thank you!
Good morning, Linda. It was so good of you to stop by today. My eyes filled automatically with appreciation for knowing you and the feeling that we have put our hands and hearts together.
Fern, YOU are the wordsmith! I miss your posts (HCR) so always happy when you share here on Dr. Snyder’s site. Thank you for your kindness and I’m so grateful to have gotten to meet you through Substack!
Feeling so very anxious today, but it’s comforting knowing that there are so many people who are not discouraged and keep working to keep our democracy, as Dr. Snyder and others are doing—it helps me to read the comments because it is reassuring knowing there are people like you. As my husband says “not enough of them” but I’m going to keep optimistic—the alternative is too overwhelming. Best!🗽☮️💟
Good morning, Linda. Our optimism, working together and respect for one another serve the health, welfare and democracy for all.
Salud!
Very helpful, thank you. We have to be brave and stand up for each person's vote, and if the gerrymandering favors our side, we have to correct that too. When asked about her main values, Vice President Harris answered they were "fairness and justice." I'm with her.
Thank you. I live in Michigan and we were able to pass a ballot initiative creating a commission made up of ordinary citizens to draw fair redistricting maps. It is a more complicated process than you might think. The process had its hiccups but resulted in much fairer maps. Be very glad Ohio is a state that has ballot initiatives that allows voters to bypass a gerrymandered legislature and enact real changes to the constitution and/or laws of the state such as fair redistricting and reproductive freedom. Unfortunately not all states do.
In Florida we almost need a lawyer to understand some of the proposed amendments as the wording is so tricky. Trump and his lackeys will spend Election Day in West Palm Beach Convention Center and roads are already closed around the area.
Happy Tuesday, America! 🗳️
Presidential historian Allan Lichtman is standing by his September prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris will defeat former President Donald Trump in the race for the White House. https://youtu.be/K5A_UKLe5uo
#TrustWomen 🗽
America’s #BiggestLoser just can’t win 😸
End gerrymandering and bring in ranked choice voting and the people will prevail.
I grew up in Nashville, TN. Nashville has remained a blue city in a red state, and until recently it was represented for many years in Congress by a Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper. The TN legislature has a Republican super majority, and recently it redrew the Nashville district and divided it into three long skinny districts that reach out into rural areas from the heart of Nashville, diluting the votes of urban Democrats so that each of these three districts would become Republican majority districts. It worked.
I heard former Representative Jim Cooper on a radio program saying that he had repeatedly warned city officials in Nashville that this would happen, and they dismissed him, saying, "Oh come on, they would never do that." But they did.
"It would be a ludicrous map by any definition. What makes it an outrageous map from a civil rights standpoint is that it exists solely to silence the voters in this city, one of the most racially and culturally diverse in Tennessee. Under the new redistricting plan, Republicans in the legislature kept intact the counties in virtually all other House districts, but they carved Metropolitan Davidson County into three districts. Each one begins in Nashville and extends far into the overwhelmingly white surrounding counties."--Margaret Renkl, in the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/opinion/nashville-gerrymander-voting-jim-cooper.html
Shannon, the information I've included in my comments show how the gerrymanderers violated our Constitution and committed federal offenses. Feel free to send that information to someone who can use it in TN.
It’s obvious that the swindlers-cheaters-liars are doing their best to exhaust we the PEOPLE over many years until they’ve grabbed all power and destroyed our democracy. Trying to keep up with all the disgusting cheating is a full time job for everyone. I’ll pray that Ohioans aren’t fooled and they get their fair districting. The rest of us can only hope that we get the chance to address this in our state.
Thank you, Dr. Snyder, for honoring Ohio with your column today, right before the "Election Day". This is so well described, I will be posting it on my FB page for those who are still confused, as Frank LaRose and his cabal hope....we have voted two previous times overwhelmingly to create "Fair Districts" - and those Republicans who insist on maintaining their ill-begotten gains have found ways to block the will of the voters. Much resides on tomorrow's results.
From Canada: thank you for your informed and insightful analysis of the American and global situations. I strongly hope that Issue 1 passes. Reading On Freedom, most grateful!
You forgot to mention the wording on the ballot itself--I live abroad and voted absentee a few weeks ago, so I'd heard nothing about this amendment. I am an intelligent reader I swear, but I started reading this thing and thought voting for it would ALLOW gerrymandering. Had to look it up to find out the opposite.
The naked manipulation of the Ohio Republicans, not to mention the VERY thinly veiled nods to conspiracy theories (visible in Issue 1 and in last summer's August attempt to raise the threshold for Constitutional amendments passing, justified by invoking "special interests pouring money into Ohio") is truly nauseating
Rotten boroughs & Electoral Butchery-Gerrymandering of voting districts
Thank you, Dr Snyder for explaining Gerrymandering!
Gerrymandering seems like a holdover of Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised African American politicians and voters. It is the only way Republicans can win elections because their platforms are nonexistent and serve their need for unchecked power, control and greed.
All of us will keep a close watch on the Ohio voters rejection of Electoral Butchery. Thank you to the Ohio press for their expedient clarification on this, empowering Ohio citizens to make their vote meaningful in this and future elections, as well as providing hope for other states whose useless politicians require Rotten Boroughs to be elected to power.
Perhaps we all should digitally subscribe to these local Ohio newspapers!!!
Many thanks for this detailed account of what's been going on in Ohio, and do keep us updated. I know we can read about these things in newspapers, but you bring a nice personal touch to it, which I enjoy very much.
This election is unique in American history -- unique in that the loser is likely to be jailed. In one case, the jailing will come after due process. In the other, it will come after a dictator orders it.