This raises a key question whether a map drawn entirely by computer,
according to objective standards, with no human intervention other than
to launch it, would be properly subject to the VRA and its preclearance
standards, which presuppose maps drawn by human beings. Computers don't
discriminate, given an open algorithm that can be debated rather than
the details of the map drawn by it.
I suspect such a system would satisfy the invitation for a solution
made in Justice Kennedy's comment in Vieth v.
Jubelirer:
With no agreed upon substantive principles of fair
districting, there
is no basis on which to define clear, manageable, and politically
neutral standards for measuring the burden a given partisan
classification imposes on representational rights. Suitable standards
for measuring this burden are critical to our intervention. ... There
are, then, weighty arguments for holding cases like these to be
nonjusticiable. However, they are not so compelling that they require
the Court now to bar all future partisan gerrymandering claims. ...
That a workable standard for measuring a gerrymander's burden on
representational rights has not yet emerged does not mean that none
will emerge in the future.
On 11/03/2010 02:54 PM, Justin Levitt wrote:
Florida's
amendment uses an intent standard, not an effects standard
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------