Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, January 11, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 88)

Historically, the Front-Runner Lost the Nomination Nearly Two-Thirds of Multi-Ballot Conventions

Democratic Party nomination intra-party fight concept as two mountain cliffs each shaped as a donkey clash head to head damaging the party as a 3D illustration. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Democratic Party nomination intra-party fight concept as two mountain cliffs each shaped as a donkey clash head to head damaging the party as a 3D illustration. (Photo: AdobeStock)

With 25 candidates vying to be the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination, it could be assumed roughly 20 are wasting their time, and their supporters’ money.

Of course, many if not most are primarily building name recognition in anticipation of future bids for higher-office. Some are trying to fill a cabinet slot, or just want to add “former presidential candidate” to their curriculum vitae.

Some of the “also rans” are hoping lightning strikes and they get the vice presidential nod by virtue of their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or any combination thereof.

However, all that being obvious, there is an underlying dynamic that might not even be apparent to most of these lightning in a bottle-chasers; which, if it were to happen, would be just as big of a shock to them as it would be to the wider political world.

Name recognition is a factor in current front-runner status, and the first debates are lifting profiles. At this point, there is no breakaway leader and Joe Biden’s post-announcement lead is being whittled away. The top five are moving up and down within a 5-point range.

Even if there is a post-debate bump, there is no guarantee it will hold and the poll-positions will not revert to the norm for the trend.

If this happens, a multi-candidate, multi-ballot convention becomes a strong possibility. That’s especially true since the leading candidates have largely regional appeal, which may blunt one candidate’s ability to dominate the field.

If the factions make it difficult for any one individual to secure the necessary number of delegates, then 2020 could well see a “dark horse” nominee. That seems at least likely at this point given the sheer number of factions driven by ideology, electability, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

The current crop — yes, even the one-percenters — just have to hang in there for the long haul. They need just enough delegates to be ultimately nominated with credibility, no matter how quixotic or embarrassing it might look.

Simply put, history shows that any of the current 25 candidates could get the nomination, even if they are now polling at 1% or less.

Further, convention history shows that when there has been more than one ballot and more than two candidates, the leading candidate on the first ballot fails to secure the nomination nearly two-thirds of the time. That’s true even if they started with a commanding lead and for both parties, though more so Republicans.

Since the founding of both parties, there have been 23 multi-ballot conventions, 15 of which the first ballot leader lost the nomination. The GOP had 9 multi-ballot conventions, of which the leader lost in 7. In the remaining 14, the Democratic front-runner lost in 8.

Even more encouraging for those currently trailing, a number of these conventions nominated “dark horse” candidates. Delegates turned to bring multi-ballot, multi-candidate front-runner deadlocks to a merciful end. 

The 1924 Democratic National Convention is the prime example. After 124 ballots, exhausted delegates turned to the unlikely John W. Davis. A small group of supporters doggedly kept his name in nomination and in contention.

The darkest of Democratic dark horses include James K. Polk, the original “dark horse”  in 1844, and Franklin Pierce in 1852. The most famous — William Jennings Bryan in 1896 — was only in his thirties, just like Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Similarly, Republicans nominated Warren G. Harding in 1920 and James Garfield in 1880, both after two leaders deadlocked ballot after ballot..

Being at 1% this far out is hardly an impediment to eventual success. Jimmy Carter was badly trailing the Democratic field at 1%. Yet, he went on to take the 1976 nomination in an eventually uncontested convention. A contested convention is even more of an assist for one-percenters, as history has shown.

For the Republican Party, the first ballot leader received the nomination in just 2 multi-ballot conventions, and lost the nomination in 7.

Contested YearFront-runnerNominee
1856Nathaniel P. BanksJohn C. Frémont
1860William H. SewardAbraham Lincoln
1876James G. BlaineRutherford B. Hayes
1880Ulysses S. GrantJames A. Garfield
1884James G. BlaineJames G. Blaine
1888John ShermanBenjamin Harrison
1916Charles Evans HughesCharles Evans Hughes
1920Leonard WoodWarren G. Harding
1940Thomas E. DeweyWendell Willkie

For the Democratic Party, the first ballot leader received the nomination in 6 multi-ballot conventions, and lost it in 8.

Contested YearFront-runnerNominee
1844Martin Van BurenJames K. Polk
1848Lewis CassLewis Cass
1952Lewis CassFranklin Pierce
1856James BuchananJames Buchanan
1868George H. PendletonHoratio Seymour
1876Samuel J. TildenSamuel J. Tilden
1880Winfield Scott HancockWinfield Scott Hancock
1884Grover ClevelandGrover Cleveland
1896Richard P. BlandWilliams Jennings Bryan
1912Champ ClarkWoodrow Wilson
1920William Gibbs McAdooJames M. Cox
1924William Gibbs McAdooJohn W. Davis
1932Franklin Delano RooseveltFranklin Delano Roosevelt
1952Estes KefauverAdlai Stevenson

So, is a Yang/Gabbard ticket or Inslee/Hickenlooper ticket unlikely? History suggests it’s more than possible if the cards fall just right.

You Might Also Like

Multiple ballots were cast at 23 conventions

U.S., North Korea Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks Within Weeks

President Donald Trump became the first sitting president to visit North Korea when he met Chairman Kim Jong Un at the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) on Sunday. The two nations agreed to assemble negotiation teams and resume nuclear talks within weeks.

While every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan — except for George H.W. Bush — has toured the DMZ, none had stepped into the Hermit Kingdom.

“Leaving South Korea after a wonderful meeting with Chairman Kim Jong Un,” President Trump tweeted. “Stood on the soil of North Korea, an important statement for all, and a great honor!”

President Trump shook hands with Chairman Kim as he crossed the low stone curb separating North and South Korea at around 3:45 p.m. local time. The two also met for roughly 50 minutes behind closed doors.

President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to visit North Korea when he met Chairman Kim Jong Un at the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) on Sunday, June 30, 2019.
President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to visit North Korea when he met Chairman Kim Jong Un at the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) on Sunday, June 30, 2019.

Speaking to reporters afterward, the president said that the two leaders agreed to resume nuclear talks and that “speed is not the object.”

“We’re looking to get it right,” he said.

Talks between the U.S. and North Korea ended in Vietnam earlier than expected in February with no nuclear agreement reached. Chairman Kim offered to close down the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in exchange for sanction relief.

But President Trump raised new intelligence indicating other activities, suggesting North Korea didn’t believe the U.S. was aware of them. Pyongyang was unwilling to give up its intercontinental ballistic missile and warhead programs.

President Trump cancelled a signing ceremony and walked away.

In June 2018, President Trump and Chairman Kim met for a historic summit in Singapore, the first-ever between the U.S. and North Korea after more than six decades of hostility. That did result in a signed agreement pledging to work toward the “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

Chairman Kim said the world would see a “major change” in his regime, which agreed to destroy a “major” missile testing site. But North Korea later said it would not denuclearize unless the U.S. eased sanctions and its own arsenal.

Previously, the U.S. successfully pushed a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing the most severe sanctions ever on the communist regime. In total, the sanctions cost Pyongyang more than $1 billion in exports.

The Trump Administration followed up by sanctioning a Russian bank that was “knowingly facilitating” illicit transactions related to North Korea.

The president decided North Korea would not see relief from sanctions before the second nuclear summit. He insisted the “maximum pressure” campaign continue until the two countries reach a verifiable deal.

President Trump is not the first to walk away from a nuclear summit to hold out for a more preferable agreement.

In November 1985, former President Ronald Reagan held his first meeting with then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva. The two men met alone with only trusted interpreters.

Only 15 minutes had been allotted for the discussion, but it went on for an hour. President Reagan later walked away from Reykjavík Summit in October 1986, but it resulted in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to visit North Korea when he met Chairman Kim Jong Un at the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) on Sunday, June 30, 2019.
President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to visit North Korea when he met Chairman Kim Jong Un at the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) on Sunday, June 30, 2019.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis praised the meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim, and said he hoped it would lead to peace.

“In the last few hours we saw in Korea a good example of the culture of encounter,” Pope Francis told thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square, according to Reuters. “I salute the protagonists, with a prayer that such a significant gesture will be a further step on the road to peace, not only on that peninsula, but for the good of the entire world.”

President Trump called described the historic meet on North Korean soil as “a great day for the world.” When asked if Chairman Kim could visit D.C., he said he “would certainly extend the invite” under the right circumstances and was confident “at some point” it will happen.

President Donald Trump became the first sitting

Key with business words and rig equipment graphic icons relative to the oil and gas industry. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/JEGAS RA)
Key with business words and rig equipment graphic icons relative to the oil and gas industry. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/JEGAS RA)

The Baker Hughes (BHI) North America Rig Count rose by 5 rigs for the week ending June 28. The U.S. rig count was flat at 967 and down 80 from last year, while Canada rose 5 and remained down 48 from last year.

Baker Hughes Rig CountJune 21June 28
North America10861091
U.S.967967
Gulf of Mexico2426
Canada119124

Rigs classified as drilling for oil and in operation rose by 4 in the U.S. to 793, which is 65 rigs less than the 858 one year ago. Rigs classified as drilling for gas declined by 4 to 173, and are still 14 fewer than the 187 one year ago.

Rigs in Canada classified as drilling for oil rose 4 to 84, which is 33 less than the 117 rigs in operation one year ago. Rigs classified as drilling for gas rose by 1 to 40, which is now 15 less than the 55 in operation one year ago.

The Gulf of Mexico, which is a subset of the U.S. total, rose by 2 to 26 rigs. That’s 8 more rigs than the 18 in operation one year ago.


The Baker Hughes North America Rig Count tracks changes in the number of active operating oil and gas rigs on a weekly basis. Active rigs are essential for exploration and development.

The United States and Canada are separate components, and a separate count for the Gulf of Mexico is given as a subset of the U.S. total. The count includes only rigs that are significant users of oilfield services and supplies.

The Baker Hughes (BHI) North America Rig

Next Month Will Mark the Longest Expansion Since the Mid-1850s

Sale, consumerism and people concept - happy family with child and shopping cart buying food at grocery store or supermarket. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/Syda Productions)
Sale, consumerism and people concept – happy family with child and shopping cart buying food at grocery store or supermarket. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/Syda Productions)

The Survey of Consumers final gauge on consumer sentiment in June rebounded from the preliminary reading as tariff concerns among upper income earners subsided. Still, the Consumer Sentiment Index was down 1.8 points and came in slightly less (0.3) than the consensus forecast.


IndicatorPrior FinalPrelimConsensus ForecastForecast RangePrelim
Consumer Sentiment Index100.097.998.496.7  to 101.098.2
Current Economic Conditions110.0112.5
111.9
Index of Consumer Expectations93.588.689.3

“June’s small overall decline was entirely due to households with incomes in the top third of the distribution, who more frequently mentioned the negative impact of tariffs, cited by 45%, up from 30% last month,” Richard Curtain, Chief Economist for the Survey of Consumers.

“Most of the June slippage was concentrated in prospects for the national economy, with the unemployment rate expected to inch upward instead of drifting downward in the year ahead.”

Nevertheless, U.S. expansion is just one month away from setting a new record. The current expansion from June 2009 to June 2019 is now tied with the prior record from March 1991 to March 2001.

Next month will mark the longest expansion since the mid-1850s.

“Of the two components of the Sentiment Index, the cyclical peaks in the Current Conditions Index were nearly identical, but the peaks in the Expectations Index differed significantly,” Mr. Curtain added (see chart above).

“Since it is the Expectations Index, rather than the Current Conditions Index, that is most closely tied to changes in discretionary purchases, it should be no surprise that the annual growth rate in real personal consumption was 2.6% in the past two years, half the 5.2% average from 1998 to 2000.”

The fewest respondents in six years anticipate interest rates to rise, and the decline in mortgage rates is now starting to have a positive impact on home buying.

Indeed, pending home sales (PHSI) and existing home sales rebounded in May, while new home sales posted upward revisions.

The preliminary reading for the Survey of Consumers in July is scheduled to be released on Friday, July 19, 2019 at 10am EST.

The Survey of Consumers final gauge on

Trump Administration Claims “Corruption Directly Contributed” to Electrical Grid Failures in Venezuela

President Donald Trump signs an executive order, left, while Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro, right, attends a signing ceremony. (Photos: Reuters/Miraflores Palace/Handout)
President Donald Trump signs an executive order, left, while Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, right, attends a signing ceremony. (Photos: Reuters/Miraflores Palace/Handout)

The Trump Administration sanctioned two current and former officials aligned with the regime led by Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. The sanctions come after the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday announced indictments for their alleged roles in laundering and bribery schemes.

Luis Alfredo Motta Dominguez (Motta), 60, and Eustiquio Jose Lugo Gomez (Lugo), 55, were charged in an eight-count indictment in the Southern District of Florida. It included one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and seven counts of money laundering.

Motta Dominguez is the former Minister of Popular Power for Electric Power and former President of Corpoelec. Lugo Gomez is the current Deputy Minister of Finance, Investment and Strategic Alliances for the Ministry of Popular Power for Electric Power (Lugo),

Venezuelans have had 23,860 electrical outages this year due, alone. The State Department said “their corruption directly contributed to the deterioration and failure of Venezuela’s electrical system.”

The indictment alleges the two Maduro loyalists took bribes to award Corpoelec business to U.S.-based companies, and laundered the proceeds in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

“Interim President Juan Guaido and the democratically-elected National Assembly are pursuing a peaceful and democratic path that offers Venezuelans a better future,” a spokesman for the State Department said.

“The United States stands with them and the people of Venezuela as they demand democratic restoration and a return to economic prosperity and stability.”

It isn’t the first time the Trump Administration has taken aim officials surrounding Maduro, particularly those in the energy sector.

In January, Trump Administration announced sanctions targeting Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), Venezuela’s state-owned oil and natural gas monopoly.

“We will continue to use economic and diplomatic tools to support Venezuela’s ongoing democratic transition,” the State Department added in a statement. “U.S. sanctions need not be permanent and are intended to bring about a positive change of behavior.”

On June 24, 2019, Jesus Ramon Veroes, 69, of Venezuela, and Luis Alberto Chacin Haddad, 54, of Miami, Florida, each pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida to one count of conspiracy to violate various provisions of the FCPA.

Veroes and Chacin, who agreed to make payments to the officials at Corpoelec, are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Altonaga on Sept. 4, 2019.

The Trump Administration sanctioned two recently-indicted current

Income and Outlays Rose $88.6 Billion and $62.1 Billion, Respectively; Personal Saving Rate 6.1%

American flag and U.S. dollar financial and economy concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)
American flag and U.S. dollar financial and economy concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported personal income rose $88.6 billion (0.5%) in May, stronger than the consensus forecast. The gain in the component of the personal income and outlays report was largely driven by increases in personal interest income, wages and salaries.

Disposable personal income (DPI) rose $72.6 billion (0.5%). Personal consumption expenditures (PCE), or consumer spending, increased $59.7 billion (0.4%).

IndicatorPriorRevisedConsensus ForecastForecast RangeResult
Personal Income – M/M ∆0.5%0.3%0.1% to 0.4%0.5%
Consumer Spending – M/M ∆0.3%0.6%0.4%0.2% to 0.5%0.4%
PCE Price Index M/M ∆0.3%0.1%0.1% to 0.2%0.2%
Core PCE Price Index – M/M ∆0.2%0.1%0.1% to 0.2%0.2%
PCE Price Index Y/Y ∆1.5%1.6%1.4%1.4% to 1.5%1.5%
Core PCE Price Index – Yr/Yr ∆1.6%1.5%1.5% to 1.6%1.6%

Real DPI gained 0.3% in May and real PCE by 0.2%. The PCE price index increased 0.2%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index was up 0.2%.

“Given that there wasn’t a bump in the year-over-year growth rate for either the PCE Price Index or the core PCE Price Index, financial market’s will continue to price in a rate cut,” Tim Anderson, analyst at TJM Investments at NYSE said. “The PCE declined to 1.5% from 1.6% and the core was unchanged at 1.6%.”

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets from July 30 – 31.

Personal outlays gained $62.1 billion and personal saving was $985.4 billion. The personal saving rate — which is personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 6.1%.

  2019
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May
Percent change from preceding month
Personal income:  
     Current dollars -0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5
Disposable personal income:  
     Current dollars -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5
     Chained (2012) dollars -0.2 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.3
Personal consumption expenditures (PCE):  
     Current dollars 0.3 -0.2 1.0 0.6 0.4
     Chained (2012) dollars 0.4 -0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2
Price indexes:  
     PCE -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2
     PCE, excluding food and energy 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
Price indexes: Percent change from month one year ago
     PCE 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5
     PCE, excluding food and energy 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Personal

A photo of a home pending for sale with sale pending on a realty sign. (Photo: AdobeStock)
A photo of a home pending for sale with sale pending on a realty sign. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The National Association of Realtors said pending home sales rose 1.1% in May, easily beating the forecast. Three of the four major regions posted growth, while the West saw a slight decline.


IndicatorsPriorConsensus ForecastForecast RangeResult
PHSI – M/M ∆-1.5 %0.6 %-0.1 % to 1.1 %1.1 %
PHSI – Level104.3105.4

The Pending Home Sales Index — which is a forward-looking indicator based on contract signings — rose to 105.4 in May, up from 104.3 in April. Year-over-year contract signings ticked down 0.7%, marking the 17th straight month of annual decreases.

“Rates of 4% and, in some cases even lower, create extremely attractive conditions for consumers,” Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist said. “Buyers, for good reason, are anxious to purchase and lock in at these rates.”

Mr. Yun said consumer confidence for home-buying has gained, and forecasted more activity in the coming months. He added the year-over-year increases could be a sign of a rise in inventory.

“The Federal Reserve may cut interest rates one more time this year, but there is no guarantee mortgage rates will fall from these already historically low points,” he said. “Job creation and a rise in inventory will nonetheless drive more buyers to enter the market.”

Regional Breakdown for PHSI

The PHSI in the Northeast increased 3.5% to 92.0 and is now just 0.5% below a year ago. In the Midwest, the index rose 3.6% to 100.3, and is 1.2% lower than May 2018.

Pending home sales in the South ticked up 0.1% to 124.1 in May, which is 0.7% higher than last May. The index in the West fell 1.8% in May to 91.8 and is down 3.1% year-over-year. 

The National Association of Realtors Pending Home

Most Don’t View UFOs as a Threat to U.S. National Security

An Alien UFO above Time Square in Manhattan, New York City, New York. (Photo: AdobeStock)
An Alien UFO above Time Square in Manhattan, New York City, New York. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Roughly 6 in 10 Americans think it is likely intelligent life exists on other planets and do not view UFOs as a threat to national security, a new poll finds.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds 61% believe intelligent life on other planets is likely, including 31% who find it very likely. That’s the highest level of belief measured to date.

By party, Republicans (31%), Democrats (31%), and unaffiliated voters (32%) are equally likely to believe intelligent life on other planets is very likely. Men (39%) are somewhat more likely than are women (24%) to say it is very likely.

Recently, a number of top U.S. Senators have been briefed on UFO sightings by U.S. Navy pilots. Those experiences have been documented by the History Channel in a new six-part series Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation.

The series follows Luis Elizondo, a former military intelligence official who confirmed the existence the Defense Department’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).

AATIP refers to UFOs as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Mr. Elizondo resigned from the post to investigate the phenomena with his team. That team includes former Blink-182 frontman Tom DeLonge. Steve Justice, who worked at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, is also on the team.

Chris Mellon, who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, is the team’s government liaison. He has played a key role in setting up those recent briefings and believes UFOs are a serious threat to national security.

But Americans do not view UFOs as a threat, at least as of now.

An equal number (61%) do not believe UFOs pose a national security threat to the United States. Twelve percent (12%) disagree and 27% are unsure.

By party, Republicans (13%) are only slightly less likely than Democrats (16%) to view UFOs as a threat to national security, while unaffiliated voters (9%) are least likely.

That may be due to the fact only 11% report ever seeing or knowing someone who has seen a UFO, while 80% have not and do not. Still, according to the U.S. Census Bureau Population Clock, that 11% translates to more than 36 million adults nationwide.

By party, Republicans (11%) and Democrats (11%) are equally likely to report having seen or knowing someone who has seen a UFO, while unaffiliated voters (12%) are not statistically likely to disagree.

The national survey of 1,000 American adults was conducted June 23-24, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports.

Roughly 6 in 10 (61%) Americans think

Digital composite of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) building and the American flag. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Digital composite of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) building and the American flag. (Photo: AdobeStock)

In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sent the case surrounding the citizenship question on the 2020 census back to the lower court in New York. While complicated, the ruling is at least a short-term defeat for the Trump Administration.

The High Court did not agree with U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman’s reasoning, and gave the Commerce Department another chance to argue its point. But as a matter of logistics, the ruling means all residents will be interviewed for the 2020 census, and the citizenship question will not be on it.

“We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably,” the majority opinion states. “Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action.”

“What was provided here was more of a distraction.”

Historically, the U.S. asked a citizenship question from 1820 to 1950. The citizenship question would be the same as the one posed in the annual American Community Survey (ACS). The U.S. Commerce Department uses the 10-year questionnaire to collects population data.

Data are used to determine representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, the number of electoral votes each state will have in the Electoral College, and to allocated roughly $600 billion in federal funding.

The only major difference between the census and the ACS is the sample size, with the ACS being a much smaller percentage of households than the actual census.

Worth noting, two-thirds (66%) of American adults support the government posing a citizenship question on the U.S. Census, a recent survey found. Only 23% disagreed, and 11% are undecided.

An overwhelming majority, at 89%, think it’s important for the government to get as accurate a count of the U.S. population as possible in the Census, including 67% who say it’s Very Important.

Just seven percent (7%) say an accurate count of the population is not very or Not At All Important.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sent the

Chief Justice Roberts, Majority Opinion, Leave Gerrymandering to States, Congress

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). (Photo: AdobeStock/bbourdages)
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). (Photo: AdobeStock/bbourdages)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal courts will have no role in reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims.

Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by the conservative justices, while Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and and Sonia Sotomayor.

The court holds that none of the proposed “tests” for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernible and manageable — e.g., there’s not a good test to use to decide them.

“No one can accuse this Court of having a crabbed view of the reach of its competence,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. “But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority.”

Meanwhile, Justice Kagan dissented with “respect but deep sadness”.

“I think it important to underscore that fact: The majority disputes none of what I have said (or will say) about how gerrymanders undermine democracy,” she wrote. “Indeed, the majority concedes (really, how could it not?) that gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles.'”

Chief Justice Roberts held the states can pass laws to deal with partisan gerrymandering, and so can Congress.

The High Court’s majority ruling sends both the Maryland and North Carolina cases back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss review for lack of jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled 5-4

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial