Starting in 2002, PA re-districting efforts start to get challenged. These are the Vieth cases, referenced in Perry. For purposes of satisfying the 1-person-1-vote rule, how equal do the districts have to be? 19 persons out of 650K is too far off, says the court. In each of these districts, there are about 30 babies born every day, and some measurable death rate. But the court says they have to shoot for perfection. So after this, republicans have the majority, and they re-district in their own favor, but this is also found not to be too much: SCOTUS says they should stay out, there are no standards to apply, etc. Let the political process solve this issue. But there's a hint that they'll do analysis ad hoc, and you never know when it's going to apply. (that's Kennedy, by the way)
If the courts take over the districting, they will inevitably be controlled: see Sierra Club and Douglas.
In the end, it all evens out: each party will get its day from time to time, and they keep one another in line in the long run. Both on a state-by-state basis, and even within one state (see, e.g., the amcicus brief in Bandemer).
If the court controls political districting, it inherits racial districting along with it.
In the end, staying out of this might lead to a one-party state: that's a dirty word in US Democracy.
It takes an outsider (the court) to resolve some things.
If we allow gerrymandering, it will lead to further polarization: it concentrates parties by districts and fosters extremism. Representatives from gerrymandered districts do not need to court moderates from the other side. The only real fear an incumbent need have is a member of your own party. So if you're a republican, you go right, and if you're democrat, you head left, because you don't want to be overtaken by someone more true to the party than you are.
At last, the racial aspect. Should districts be gerrymandered to take account of race? Used to be that racial groups were dispersed to deny them influence. Should they be concentrated to give them influence, however?
The VRA requires federal approval for re-districting in states with a history of disadvantaging racial groups. You can get approval if you've made some effort to enhance representation.
In the words of Bill Clinton, we want congress to "look like America." That might apply to religious groups as well, by the way. But if this were achieved, it would be a cause of reassurance to every minority, and would foster confidence. And it's not just appearance: people from a group will do a better job representing the interests of that group than non-members would.
But there are good arguments against it. Lots of slippery slopes: how much action should be taken? who counts as a minority? won't this polarize things along racial lines (i.e., district = category)? This will reduce communication and compromise. And minorities will actually wind up with less influence, because they are after all minorities. We want white politicians to court African-American votes, not just feel free to ignore them because they're all in other districts. We want to keep the David Dukes out of office, not set up a system that fosters them.
SCOTUS has granted cert for the following: how diluted can a district be to still be considered a protected district on the basis of race.
Contribution limits may be constitutional. Spending limits are an infringement on 1A.
Dude sides with the majority: there should be few limits.
Note that regulating contribition potentially avoids corruption (i.e., undue influence by a single party). Regulating expenditures doesn't have that same policy motivation.
So it's 1A that controls here: the core of 1A is the facilitation of political dialog. Of course this isn't control of speech, just how much you can spend on it. Buckley is one of those "super-precedents" that shouldn't be tampered with, maybe.
We don't want just to have a built-in advantage for wealthy candidates. Of course, we could limit the amount of one's own money that could be contributed to a campaign. Of course Buckley declares that to be unconstitutional. Plus, you can't corrupt yourself by spending your own money.
The court basically says that egalite is not the main issue here: free expression is.
Used to be that buying political influence wasn't such a big deal. Why is it now? Because the power of government keeps increasing. And that means that the need for elections to control government is increasing. If we want to diminish the amount of economic intrigue by powerful lobbyists, we need to make government less powerful. But maybe we don't want to stop it: if nobody has influence over government, that's not a good thing. The alternative is Kafka-esque: a government with tons of power that nobody knows how to influence.
It's demeaning for politicians to have to always be doing fundraising. Shouldn't we limit it? Well, why do they hate it? Because it's the only time that a politician is really directly accountable. This may be the point at which elected legislators are accountable to people.
But campaign finance reform is actually incumbent protection: the incumbent has name recognition and status that the challenger would have to spend to establish.
Remember (here we're on the dissent): the principle policy reason for elections is to give the people control over the government. The people need to be politically equal. And even though individual votes may be equal, the individual's influence will be widely varied if people can contribute as much as they want. And equality of electoral policy is maybe our primary concern.
Another perspective: if we allow big money contributions, then politics will negatively influence the economic system, by diverting resources.
Do these term limits, or do they not, violate principles of federalism? Disagreement. And maybe on other grounds: again disagreement. But the federalism argument comes down 5-4 against term limits, so Arkansas loses. Congress is a federal institution, and states can't tinker with it.
In Bush v. Gore, Stevens said we should defer to FL, because presidential elections were a state affair. So you'd think, a fortiori, state representatives are even more obviously governed by state law. But what is wrong if AR says they want to control their own delegation to congress?
Well, if one state imposes term limits and others don't, the neophytes will be at a huge disadvantage, and AR won't be equal in terms of the representation it gets. But so what? Self-determination. And we want experimentation-- maybe they'll get better representation this way, actually.
The issue of term limits was raised at the constitutional convention, and the constitution is silent on it.
On the merits, though, term limits are tampering with the election process-- it's telling voters who they can't vote for, and interfering with their right to choose who represents them. If you want someone out, vote them out.