Clarence Thomas wants to lift the ban on rotten boroughs

[Greedo punched first]

Clarence Thomas calls for making rotten boroughs legal again.

[Skill and Chance]

Was it previously known that he opposed the Baker v. Carr line of cases?  I can't say I'm surprised.  Thankfully, it was a sole concurrence and no one else signed on. 

I would be somewhat nervous about Alito and particularly Gorsuch on this issue, because while it's a very logical reading of the constitutional language in question, it's decidedly not an originalist reading.  However, with all their respect for tradition, Roberts/Kav/Barrett wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole,  especially after they sided against the state legislature in Moore v. Harper.

FWIW the original equal population congressional districts case Wesberry v. Sanders was decidedly closer (6/3) than Reynolds v. Sims, the equal population state legislative districts case (8/1) for reasons I don't entirely understand.  They were both decided the same year by the same 9 justices.

[politicallefty]

I mentioned this a few days ago in the South Carolina redistricting topic. I don't think Thomas is the only Justice to believe that this line of jurisprudence should be overturned. He definitely has Alito and probably Gorsuch. Gorsuch tends not to tip his hand too often, but his vote in Moore doesn't give me much hope for him.

I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time Justice Thomas has explicitly called for overturning the line of cases that started with Baker. He had the opportunity in Rucho, but that case had no concurrences (it was straight-up Roberts versus Kagan). I wonder if he's giving signals to the lower courts to try to push these issues to the top.

FWIW the original equal population congressional districts case Wesberry v. Sanders was decidedly closer (6/3) than Reynolds v. Sims, the equal population state legislative districts case (8/1) for reasons I don't entirely understand.  They were both decided the same year by the same 9 justices.

Reynolds v. Sims was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Written by originalist Justice Hugo Black, Wesberry v. Sanders was based on an originalist reading of Article I, Section 2. Wesberry had no reliance on the 14th Amendment or any other amendment.

[Skill and Chance]

I mentioned this a few days ago in the South Carolina redistricting topic. I don't think Thomas is the only Justice to believe that this line of jurisprudence should be overturned. He definitely has Alito and probably Gorsuch. Gorsuch tends not to tip his hand too often, but his vote in Moore doesn't give me much hope for him.

I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time Justice Thomas has explicitly called for overturning the line of cases that started with Baker. He had the opportunity in Rucho, but that case had no concurrences (it was straight-up Roberts versus Kagan). I wonder if he's giving signals to the lower courts to try to push these issues to the top.

FWIW the original equal population congressional districts case Wesberry v. Sanders was decidedly closer (6/3) than Reynolds v. Sims, the equal population state legislative districts case (8/1) for reasons I don't entirely understand.  They were both decided the same year by the same 9 justices.

Reynolds v. Sims was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Written by originalist Justice Hugo Black, Wesberry v. Sanders was based on an originalist reading of Article I, Section 2. Wesberry had no reliance on the 14th Amendment or any other amendment.

IDK either or both of them could have joined the concurrence but didn't.

What's interesting is that based on that background, there may be more votes on the current SCOTUS to uphold Wesberry v. Sanders than Reynolds v. Sims, even though the former was closer than the latter when originally decided.  It's particularly easy to imagine Gorsuch falling that way, because one follows directly from the original constitutional text while the other is a more novel application of the 14th Amendment.  Also "defer to the states" and all that.  

How close do you think these cases are to being overturned?  Sounds like you believe they would either be 6/3 or 7/2 to uphold them if challenged today?  Of course, it's also not a given that the successors to Thomas and Alito will be equally radical or more like Kavanaugh and Barrett.  Trump in particular may not be thrilled with overly literalist judges anymore given the political challenges they have caused him.