Gerrymandering



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.

:snacks:

 
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.

:snacks:
Click to expand...
These decisions are (I firmly believe) quite possibly the most important political issue in America...that nobody is paying attention to.

 
Which issue? Voting rights in general, districting practices, or more narrowly the consequences of the cases currently making their way through the courts?

 


"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.

 
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.

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.
Click to expand...




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/the-2020-redistricting-war-is-on/?utm_term=.2451d4206036

 
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

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. 
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Click to expand...


This is QUITE the quote from the guy who drew North Carolina's map:

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.”
Click to expand...


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. 

 


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/

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.
Click to expand...


Good news, I think?

 
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?
Click to expand...


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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.   :blink:

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

 
Back
Top