Kiyoat Husker Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 15 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: This is big. If it is appealed and picked up by the SCOTUS, that would be a THIRD political party gerrymandering case they would be looking at this year. In this instance, the Republican that drew the map openly admitted what he was doing and why. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Kiyoat Husker said: This is big. If it is appealed and picked up by the SCOTUS, that would be a THIRD political party gerrymandering case they would be looking at this year. In this instance, the Republican that drew the map openly admitted what he was doing and why. These decisions are (I firmly believe) quite possibly the most important political issue in America...that nobody is paying attention to. Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Which issue? Voting rights in general, districting practices, or more narrowly the consequences of the cases currently making their way through the courts? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, zoogs said: Which issue? Voting rights in general, districting practices, or more narrowly the consequences of the cases currently making their way through the courts? Well, the thread is about "gerrymandering" and the article I posted was about "gerrymandering"...so..... 2 Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: "The plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case plan to appeal in a case that would go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court." And the plot thickens... The number of gerrymandering cases going to SCOTUS might be a driving force for them to finally render a definitive ruling on the subject. One can hope. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Just another article on how important this is. We've discussed this before - back in 2010 the Republicans made a huge increase in the amount of $ they spent on state legislature campaigns. Their goal was to put Republicans in charge of drawing district maps. We NEED a law that prevents the maps being drawn with a political motive. E.g. the shape of the district can have 6 sides maximum unless it borders a body of water. This is the most important issue we're facing right now, imo. Quote Republicans picked up 675 state legislative seats, gaining control of 12 more state legislatures. The GOP in total controlled about three times as many states in the redistricting process -- including many big, swing-y states where the lines are even more fungible and important. New lines were drawn, and in 2012, Republicans took over the House of Representatives with a commanding 234-201 majority -- despite the fact Democratic House candidates got 1.4 million more votes than Republican candidates. Some analysts think the current map is such that Democrats simply won't be able to win a majority on it, barring a massive wave in their direction. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/the-2020-redistricting-war-is-on/?utm_term=.2451d4206036 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 (edited) Groundwork laid by RBG in a 'tangential' case being leaned on in lower courts: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-sneaky-attack-on-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beginning-to-pay-dividends.html?via=recirc_engaged Quote In 2015, however, Ginsburg seized upon a tangential case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), to strike a surreptitious jurisprudential blow against political gerrymanders. AIRC did not involve a direct challenge to partisan redistricting. [...] In several remarkable passages, Ginsburg cast aspersions on partisan gerrymandering itself. The justice began her opinion by stating flatly that “partisan gerrymanders are incompatible with democratic principles.” She described political redistricting as a “problem” that “subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench[es] a rival party in power.” And she pointed out that this practice contravenes “the core principle of republican government”—that “the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” [...] AIRC marked the first time that a majority opinion with precedential value would explicitly denigrate partisan gerrymandering as an undemocratic abomination. Writing in dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed the court’s barbs as “naked appeals to public policy.” But Ginsburg was not simply leaning on her own policy preferences. She was planting the seeds of a coherent jurisprudence that lower courts could use to strike down political gerrymanders. Those seeds have now sprouted. Edited January 12, 2018 by zoogs 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 4 hours ago, zoogs said: Groundwork laid by RBG in a 'tangential' case being leaned on in lower courts: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-sneaky-attack-on-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beginning-to-pay-dividends.html?via=recirc_engaged This is QUITE the quote from the guy who drew North Carolina's map: Quote There’s no question that North Carolina Republicans manipulated their state’s congressional map to disfavor Democratic voters. The GOP legislator who helped to draw the current map, state Rep. David Lewis, openly declared that the scheme constituted “a political gerrymander,” explaining: “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.” Lewis also admitted that he used “political data in drawing this map” for the sole purpose of “gain[ing] partisan advantage,” his ultimate “goal.” He succeeded, giving Republicans an advantage in 10 out of the state’s 13 congressional districts—while noting that he would’ve preferred “to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.” What audacity. This guy clearly isn't afraid what he's doing is unconstitutional. Still, I can't imagine your average person who comes across this quote is going to feel great about it. 3 Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 On 1/11/2018 at 6:56 AM, BigRedBuster said: I didn't realize it when I first read that AP article, but there is a separate anti-gerrymandering lawsuit pending at the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Opening arguements are today. https://thinkprogress.org/pa-gerrymandering-day-in-court-49f7657d9dda/ Quote Opponents of this map have good reason to be optimistic that it will go down in court. Among other things, five of the state’s seven supreme court justices are Democrats. Should the state supreme court strike down these maps, moreover, they could potentially create a firewall against gerrymanders in Pennsylvania even if the U.S. Supreme Court takes a hard Trumpian turn. [...] But the plaintiffs in League of Women Voters also make an important additional argument — that Pennsylvania’s constitution provides “greater protection for speech and associational rights than the First Amendment.” [...] a state supreme court decision striking down Pennsylvania’s maps under the state constitution should be immune from future review, as state courts have the final say on how to interpret their own state’s constitution. Good news, I think? 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said: I didn't realize it when I first read that AP article, but there is a separate anti-gerrymandering lawsuit pending at the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Opening arguements are today. https://thinkprogress.org/pa-gerrymandering-day-in-court-49f7657d9dda/ Good news, I think? Very good news. Pennsylvania is definitely a swing state, so as a people it's in everyone's best interests for those states to have the electoral maps most free from interference. While gerrymandering doesn't directly affect electoral votes in presidential elections, it also doesn't seem right that political interests rig state legislatures in their favor. If they are able to enact an agenda that couldn't get off the ground in a fairly drawn legislature, it can affect the way people think about politics - if the whole thing is rigged, what's the point in trying anyway? Regardless, stuff like this still drives me nuts: GOP lost the popular vote but won 60/99 seats there. Edited January 17, 2018 by dudeguyy Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Very cool. What's especially good is that this was a challenge based on the Constitution of the state of Pennsylvania, not a challenge based on the U.S. Constitution, meaning it's not reviewable (or overturnable) by SCOTUS. 2 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 This is very good. It doesn't fix gerrymandering in North Carolina, but it prevents the horrible NC GOP from seizing control of the State Election Board away from Governor Roy Cooper (D). Looks like North Carolinians will have to settle for fair voting rights instead! 2 Link to comment
Making Chimichangas Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Gerrymandering (and I know both sides do it) should be, by law, 100% illegal. With what others have posted about the states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania, it is clear that the Republican agenda is to only allow white people the right to vote. And most white Republicans insist they're not racist. As a side note, I have always wondered how a state like Texas, which is 1/2 or more Hispanic, has an almost 100% white male, Republican, led state legislature. Well, now I know...gerrymandering. #F'ingCrookedRepublicans Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said: Gerrymandering (and I know both sides do it) should be, by law, 100% illegal. With what others have posted about the states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania, it is clear that the Republican agenda is to only allow white people the right to vote. And most white Republicans insist they're not racist. As a side note, I have always wondered how a state like Texas, which is 1/2 or more Hispanic, has an almost 100% white male, Republican, led state legislature. Well, now I know...gerrymandering. #F'ingCrookedRepublicans It's not half. According to wikipedia, 37.6% identify as Hispanic. But here's a nice map of a Texas district. This went to court, I think the anti-gerrymanderers won at first, then the Republicans won. Not sure what's happening with it now. I got tired of searching. Edited January 28, 2018 by Moiraine Link to comment
Recommended Posts