Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually they are exactly the opposite, just like the South Carolina Republicans.
Its the transplants that keep moving to my state and turning it blue thats really messing things up
It must suck being a conservative.
Always trying to draw a fence around some static status quo from yesteryear, fearful of any change that "threatens" it, then bitter and defensive when life inevitably bring changes anyways...
I had thought to seek and the link to the decision itself, but being 191 pages I doubt anyone, much less myself, would bother to read the whole thing.
Back in law school we studied the 'one man - one vote' issue. It is beyond complicated, and no easy solution is available. Below are my ramblings.
I guess you could, in theory, have 'at large' elections for representatives (like Senators), in which there are no defined districts within states (meaning, in NC, instead of 13 distinct districts, you vote, I assume out of a huge pool of candidates, the 13 representatives you wish to send to D.C.; the top 13 vote getters win), but that would satisfy no one whatsoever. I would hate to have to chose 13 out of a slate of 26 people or more.
So, we are left with creating districts, with each district, in theory, having generally the same number of either people or registered voters (itself an issue).
I suppose that the Supreme Court could mandate that each state creates a bipartisan commission to draw such districts. Of course, that will also create issues. In most states you have other political parties in addition to R and D. Do they get to be on the commission? What about electing the members of the commission?
Perhaps the commission could reflect the census year election results. North Carolina has 13 voting districts, so the commission would be composed of 13 people. If during the most current state-wide election (such as Presidential) Republicans got 60 percent of the vote, then the commission would be 60 percent Republican. What is 60 percent of 13? I don't know, off hand. Would the commission's vote on each particular drawn district be via simple majority, super majority, or what?
From reading the articles about this court decision, it appears that the main problem was that one of the Republican consultants was forthright about his goal: to create as many Republican districts as possible. Lesson: hide your intent. Act startled and surprised when it is pointed out that the 'politically blind' districts you drew up favor one party or the other. We have had Texas legislatures that have this part down pat.
"To the winner goes the spoils", it is said. The party in control of a state legislature gets to draw up the districts every ten years. I have no real problem with this, for elections matter. However, the political parties should at least give lip service to drawing good, sound districts.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend. For too long, parties have drawn their congressional districts in a highly partisan manner. The rest of the country should take after California, and implement an independent commission made up equally of Democrats, Republicans, and independents to draw the congressional district lines.
"If North Carolina appeals Tuesday’s decision, the Supreme Court could very well add that case to its docket."
Actually they are exactly the opposite, just like the South Carolina Republicans.
Its the transplants that keep moving to my state and turning it blue thats really messing things up
Get ready to be angrier. You'll be getting two more Democrat transplants to your home state. We'll be moving to Asheville in a couple of years
"If North Carolina appeals Tuesday’s decision, the Supreme Court could very well add that case to its docket."
Lower court rulings are overturned LOT.
This was a 3 judge panel specifically for these types of voting issues, appeal goes right to the supreme court if they accept. Did you see anything in their 191 page ruling that gives you reason that to question their ruling. Interesting that they gave the legislature a deadline,
If you want to see a crazy gerrymandering map look up Congressional District 12 formed in 1992 by the Democrats.
A Wall Street Journal editorial described the 12th as "political pornography." Known as the "I-85 district," the 12th stretched 160 miles across the central Piedmont region of the State, for part of its length no wider than the freeway right-of-way.
Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering. That's why we need independent panels to draw the districts and they need to make geographic sense.
Wait till liberals find that in NC, if districts are properly drawn, it will likely result in diminished representation for minorities.
That is actually the exact opposite of the case. The districts have been drawn by Republicans to specifically diminish representation for minorities by lumping them all together to avoid their voting power for the state at-large.
That's what started the original Gerrymandering case.
Your comment shows you have no insight at all to the issue at hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
