The State Supreme Court does not believe the redistricting plan passed by the State legislature violates the State Constitution.
PER CURIAM. These consolidated cases are before us on interlocutory transfer without ruling from the Superior Court (Brown, J.). See Sup. Ct. R. 9. The petitioners, New Hampshire voters and the towns and municipalities in which some of them live, seek a declaration that Laws 2012, chapter 9, the law redistricting the New Hampshire House of Representatives (the Plan), violates the State Constitution. We conclude that such a declaration is unwarranted.
Emphasis Mine.
I confess that I am not familiar with all the intricacies of the debate, but whenever the State Supreme Court opts out of meddling with something a majority of the elected legislature has passed–and then passed again after the Democrat Governor vetoed it–it is usually a good day.
But it gets better.
The goal of this challenge was clearly to get the court to repeat its involvement from 2002, which in 2012 the court claims it…
“.. did so reluctantly because we understood that redistricting is an inherently political process.” Id. “Unlike the legislature, courts have no distinctive mandate to compromise sometimes conflicting state apportionment policies in the people’s name.” Id. (quotation omitted); see Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 414-15 (1977).
(Another reminderthat Democrats and RINO’s are always looking to unelected judges to overturn or rewrite legislation when they lack the resources to affect their desired outcome through the will of the people.)
Of course, after the 2002 decisions the legislature continued to do its job and fiddled with the redistricting mechanics (as was intended) in an effort to prevent a repeat of the 2000 redistricting fiasco, and this seems to have worked. The Court finds the most recent plan constitutional, and in the course of doing so, leaves us with some nuggets of wisdom with far reaching applications.
Courts generally defer to legislative enactments not only because they represent “the duly enacted and carefully considered decision of a coequal and representative branch of our Government,” Walters v. Nat. Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 319 (1985), but also because the legislature “is far better equipped than the judiciary to amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing upon legislative questions.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 195-96 (1997) (quotations omitted).
“…the legislature “is far better equipped than the judiciary to amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing upon legislative questions.” Good to know. Feel free to mine a few more of these nuggets for yourself.
Something else that is good to know. The ‘republicans’ who sided with the Democrats as being most offended by the will of the people’s legislature (a will expressed not just once but twice) are the typical brood of brooding liberal sand-fleas hiding under the Elephants ears. The Quandts, Pilliod, Messier, Pepino, and Brown; old Democrats whom the Buckleycrats will only tolerate as useful idiots in Republican clothing. Legislators who would we back-benched in the ranks of the radical left but who as (r)epublicans can be counted on to vote against their own party and then revered as learned and tolerant statesman by tax and spend Democrats; as great compromisers and non-partisan leaders to be looked up to for guidance.
Really? Non-partisan leaders who can provide us with not one example of when the Liberal Democrats who defend them compromised on any matters of Conservative or Republican principle? The correct word for that particualr vintage is stooge.
And yes, you can quote me.
