1. 11
  1.  

  2. 2

    Great article; I’ve been immersing myself in some of these issues during my current sabbatical, and the heart of the issue is here:

    Grofman has developed a five-pronged gerrymandering test that distills the key elements of the Wisconsin case. Three prongs are similar to those Stephanopoulos and McGhee have proposed: evidence of partisan bias, indications that the bias would likely endure for the whole decade, and the existence of at least one replacement plan that would remedy the existing plan’s bias. To these, Grofman adds two more requirements: simulations showing that the plan is an extreme outlier, suggesting that the gerrymander was intentional, and evidence that the people who made the map knew they were drawing a much more biased plan than necessary.

    If the Supreme Court does adopt a gerrymandering standard, it remains to be seen whether it will require evidence of intent, as Grofman’s standard does, or instead focus on outcomes, as Stephanopoulos and McGhee’s standard does.

    Because most redistricting map-drawing efforts are timed to the decennial census, we are currently in a phase of legal challenges that seek to break up bad plans. Drawing good ones comes later.

    1. 1

      I remember reading and watching this a few years ago. No math either, but I thought it’s worth mentioning.

      http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/gerrymandering-explained.html

      1. 1

        Last week tonight had an introduction to Gerrymandering last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ

        (only about the political background, no nice math-based solutions offered!)