Gerrymandering

 


Supreme Court hands Democrats a win in Virginia racial gerrymander case


In a victory for Democrats in Virginia, the Supreme Court held Monday that the Republican-led Virginia House of Delegates did not have the legal right to challenge a lower court opinion that struck several district maps they had drawn as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

This means court-ordered maps that favored Democrats will continue to be used.
 
The decision will have an immediate impact on Virginia's fall legislative elections at a crucial time. The state, once reliably Republican, has slowly drifted left. Republicans have not won a statewide race since 2009, but they have held on to both the Senate and House by slim margins. This fall, every state legislative seat is up for re-election and the GOP holds only a two-seat advantage in both chambers.
 
Had the court ruled in favor of the Republican challenge, it would've greatly improved their chances of holding on to the House of Delegates. Twenty-six House districts were re-aligned by an outside expert after a lower court ruled 11 districts unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
 
I can't decide whether this or Citizens United is the worst decision of my lifetime.

Imagine anyone arguing in good faith this is good for democracy...

 
QMany said:
I can't decide whether this or Citizens United is the worst decision of my lifetime.

Imagine anyone arguing in good faith this is good for democracy...
Click to expand...


At this point you can't argue in good faith. Anybody arguing in favor of partisan gerrymandering, regardless of why, is an asshat. It's a bad day for democracy, full stop.

This was unexpected. With any luck, Ross and the Republicans looking to use this strictly as a way to transfer power away from Democratic areas to Republican areas will not have the time to draw up a new explanation for why this power grab is necessary and re-implement it for next year's census.


 
Danny Bateman said:
For reference, Republicans have long held the view that things that help Republicans are legal and things that hurt them are not.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at the 5...

Thomas - Part of Bush v. Gore majority, which wasn't a political issue beyond the reach of the courts?

Roberts - Nominated by George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote.

Alito - Nominated by George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote.

Gorsuch - Seat stolen from Garland. Nominated by Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote.

Kavanaugh - Nominated by Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote.

 
QMany said:
Let's take a look at the 5...

Thomas - Part of Bush v. Gore majority, which wasn't a political issue beyond the reach of the courts? 

Roberts - Nominated by George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote. 

Alito - Nominated by George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote. 

Gorsuch - Seat stolen from Garland. Nominated by Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote. 

Kavanaugh - Nominated by Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote. 
Click to expand...


The more I think about it the more it ticks me off.

They're essentially saying "We have no say here, it's on voters and representatives to figure this out."

How are voters supposed to override corrupt representatives who monkey with democracy when the latter literally draws their own maps? AND cracks down on ballot measures that would give voters an end-around?

It's just maddening. I'm sure none of those 5 will lose sleep tonight over it, though. Viva la GOP.

 
Danny Bateman said:
The more I think about it the more it ticks me off.

They're essentially saying "We have no say here, it's on voters and representatives to figure this out."

How are voters supposed to override corrupt representatives who monkey with democracy when the latter literally draws their own maps? AND cracks down on ballot measures that would give voters an end-around?

It's just maddening. I'm sure none of those 5 will lose sleep tonight over it, though. Viva la GOP.
Click to expand...
It's an extremely disappointing ruling.

 
Back
Top