A new Supreme Court term begins Monday. On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments i n Gill v. Whitford, otherwise known as the “Wisconsin gerrymandering” case. This is one of the most anticipated showdowns that the Justices will be expected to referee in coming days and weeks. Constitutional lawyers in the U.S. distinguish sharply between racial and partisan gerrymandering. When the claim before the courts is that lines were drawn to bleach certain districts, keeping racial minorities out, then the courts want to see proof that this was indeed the predominant motive. Not just a motive, but the predominant motive. Plaintiffs do overcome that burden, as we saw for example in a Supreme Court decision just last term. When the lines are drawn for the sake of advantaging one political party over another, though, the Supreme Court hasn't quite known how or whether to respond. In one case on point 13 years ago, Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) the court split 4 to 1 t...
Posts
Last Sunday I made some fatuous comments about the NCAA basketball tournament in an effort to illustrate the statistical concept of regression to the mean. I did so by inventing a basketball concept of regression to the chalk. As a discussion of the statistical point, that post holds up. As a discussion of the NCAA tournament, I am afraid it already looks pathetic. when I made out my own brackets, as the tournament was getting underway, I ended up with a final four of Syracuse, Iowa State, Arizona, and Michigan. You can judge my b-ball predicting prowess from the fact that not one of those teams is in the final four. The actual line-up is: Florida, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Kentucky. That's not so embarrassing, really. what is worse is that the results thus far conspicuously fail to illustrate the idea of regression to the mean/chalk. The "regression" should certainly have eliminated the Wildcats and Huskies by now, if it were a fact. As the musical version of...