Federal judges find NC legislative districts unconstitutional

[mlhm5]

Can we now agree that the current legislature and governor are racist? Anyone who defends the two racist laws....

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by arbyunc

Comments from a court decision do not prove your point. Please provide an example where Democrats in NC gerrymandered districts in order to keep power. That is what you asserted.

how would you describe the 13th district, when NC gained a Congressional seat? It was drawn by and then won by Brad Miller.

[Sherifftruman]

Yeah, the 13th is a bad district IMO and it was drawn not only to give the democrats the seat but supposedly to give minorities more voting power in it. I don't know if the republicans ever took it to court or not, but I would hope that it wouldn't have stood the test of a court challenge. And also, I'm fairly certain the republicans used to want a bipartisan Commision for redistricting when they were in the outside as well. I bet the democrats wish they given in when they had power.

But, it still doesn't change the fact that few of the districts now seem to meet several tests that are applied to districts and the republican leadership can claim all they want that the districts have nothing to do with race when if you look at statements given by people at the time and since they clearly are.

It's also kind of dissapointing that they court didn't rule earlier so something could be changed prior to the election as if there is something wrong enough to overturn the districts, why let it continue 2 more years minimum.

As usual, the parties argue and we the citizens get screwed.

At the least maybe this will spur the creation of a legit Commission. With the computational power available now, it should be quite easy to create districts that are more fair than ever.

[arbyunc]

Originally Posted by carcrazy67

Congressman Brad Miller was one of the lead architects of the 2001 plan that Farr took to court. Miller was in the State Senate then, the chairman of the redistricting committee. He doesn’t deny partisanship plays a huge role in the process. Actually, he says, it’s in lawmakers’ best interests to create safe districts not just for own party, but for the other party as well.
Brad Miller: Because that means that the districts you’re gonna lose in some anyway, you might as well lose by a lot. That makes all the districts around it better for your party. And that’s the rule of thumb for either party that’s going to be trying to draw them – I looked at both parties’ plans a decade ago, and both parties pretty much proceeded on that basis.

Does it sound like his motives were "pure" or only race related?

Now let's look at the state legislature in 2000. 29 Democrats and only 7 Republicans. Is that representative of their actual registration numbers? No. Is it because of gerrymandering due to race? Very unlikely.

Haha, okay--good job. You found one example, involving only one district, to support your argument that the Democrats 100-year hold on power was due to gerrymandering. Not very convincing, but you tried.

Look, I'm not saying Democrats wouldn't gerrymander. I agree that all politicians are motivated to stay in power, and neither party is above gerrymandering as a way to do that. But I am saying that gerrymandering is not the reason Democrats held power for 100 years in NC, as you implied earlier. There was no reason for them to do that because the state was overwhelmingly Democratic for so long. The degree to which the Republicans have gerrymandered this state is unprecedented here.

[BoBromhal]

if the Dems won every seat 51-49, would that be fair representation?

[BC1960]

Originally Posted by BoBromhal

if the Dems won every seat 51-49, would that be fair representation?

No, but it would be an improvement over the current situation!

[Sherifftruman]

Originally Posted by BC1960

No, but it would be an improvement over the current situation!

Just for those who somehow think the Republican drawn districts are all that is causing politics in this state to be what they are, you're unfortunately mistaken. Until at least the redistricting after the 2020 census, which would be 2022 I guess, and possibly the round after that when cities will get more representation, the rural areas of the state will be able to control things, regardless of the party affiliation. The differences between D and R in those areas are much smaller than in a major metro, especially on social issues, assuming that's what your concern is.

[BC1960]

Originally Posted by Sherifftruman

Just for those who somehow think the Republican drawn districts are all that is causing politics in this state to be what they are, you're unfortunately mistaken. Until at least the redistricting after the 2020 census, which would be 2022 I guess, and possibly the round after that when cities will get more representation, the rural areas of the state will be able to control things, regardless of the party affiliation. The differences between D and R in those areas are much smaller than in a major metro, especially on social issues, assuming that's what your concern is.

Perhaps, but things were better prior to 2012, and I hope they will be again one day.

[take57]

Originally Posted by Sherifftruman

The differences between D and R in those areas are much smaller than in a major metro, especially on social issues, assuming that's what your concern is.

Yeah, I suspect the differences are by in large minor, but they still have to punch the ballot with a D or an R, one way or the other. Gining up the way it's distributed is where the problems arise.