Another Loss for Gerrymandering

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
John Delaney has proposed an interesting bill that seeks to end gerrymandering and reform elections. LINK



The bill has three parts:

1. Requires states use independent commissions for congressional redistricting, to prevent partisan influence.
2. Makes Election Day a federal holiday.
3. Creates open and top-two primaries for House and Senate elections. This allows Independents and non-affiliated voters to participate in primaries. A top-two primary system is one in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on a single primary ballot. This ballot is open to all voters. The top two candidates from the primary then advance to the general election.
Who will comprise the independent commision? Who will keep it unbiased and who decides the definition of unbiased?
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Who will comprise the independent commision? Who will keep it unbiased and who decides the definition of unbiased?
That sounds like a great question to ask if this bill ever comes to the floor for debate. But whatever the answer, it literally cannot be more biased than the current standard.
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
That sounds like a great question to ask if this bill ever comes to the floor for debate. But whatever the answer, it literally cannot be more biased than the current standard.
" we have to pass the bill to know what it says".
I am not against an independent commision but I just naturally distrust it.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
This is my conjecture if the current system of gerrymandering was done away with.
First, it would pretty drastically reduce the number of minority representatives (however the Justice Department defines that term). If a computer (or something other system more objective than the current "what's good for my party") were employed, African-American voters would find themselves submerged in a sea of white (or hispanic, or Asian) voters. Voters who voted for candidates based solely (or almost solely) on the race of the candidate would lose out.
Second, I'd argue that African-American voters would paradoxically find their political clout increased by the change mentioned above. Right now, African-American voters vote almost exclusively for Democrat candidates because their self-perceived betters in the African-American community and their self-perceived betters in the white Democrat hierarchy tell them to. Democrats take black voters for granted, so they do not have to woo them with policies. Republicans do not woo black voters because they believe the task is largely hopeless. Why waste scarce resources (both money and time) pursuing voters who you know are not going to vote for you.

Now, imagine those black voters were distributed across the congressional districts of the state. A Republican aspirant in a predominantly Democratic district might reach out to black voters with policies to level the playing field. A Democrat candidate in a predominantly Republican district might be able to win by getting black voters to the polls.

Either way, I think ending party-based gerrymandering would benefit the republic.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
This is my conjecture if the current system of gerrymandering was done away with.
First, it would pretty drastically reduce the number of minority representatives (however the Justice Department defines that term). If a computer (or something other system more objective than the current "what's good for my party") were employed, African-American voters would find themselves submerged in a sea of white (or hispanic, or Asian) voters. Voters who voted for candidates based solely (or almost solely) on the race of the candidate would lose out.
Second, I'd argue that African-American voters would paradoxically find their political clout increased by the change mentioned above. Right now, African-American voters vote almost exclusively for Democrat candidates because their self-perceived betters in the African-American community and their self-perceived betters in the white Democrat hierarchy tell them to. Democrats take black voters for granted, so they do not have to woo them with policies. Republicans do not woo black voters because they believe the task is largely hopeless. Why waste scarce resources (both money and time) pursuing voters who you know are not going to vote for you.

Now, imagine those black voters were distributed across the congressional districts of the state. A Republican aspirant in a predominantly Democratic district might reach out to black voters with policies to level the playing field. A Democrat candidate in a predominantly Republican district might be able to win by getting black voters to the polls.

Either way, I think ending party-based gerrymandering would benefit the republic.


I think so, too, but the dirty little secret is that gerrymandering isn't just a "Republican" thing....whether the Democrats "started it" (I guess they sort of did since it's named after Elbridge Gerry, whose D/R party membership is what is now the Democratic Party) isn't REALLY the issue.....the REAL issue is that every single dolt up there in DC would gerrymander his/her district to ensure their perpetual election if they could.

It's one of those things everybody rants against but secretly likes - you know, like extramarital sex.
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,735
9,919
187
I agree with Tidewater that having every district be as racially balanced as possible could give them more political clout. But if Alabama elected seven white dudes in 2022 (or six if we lose a seat as predicted), there would be an outrage.

I wouldn't mind a single primary, but that should be a state or local decision, not a federal mandate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
I think this is the first federal ruling against partisan gerrymandering, apparently invoking Article 1 to rule this unconstitutional.

Federal judges rule NC congressional district maps unconstitutional, again

A panel of three federal judges on Tuesday ordered the state to redraw its congressional map again, forbidding North Carolina from holding this year's scheduled U.S. House elections until it does.

In doing so, the court ruled that Republican state legislators, seeking to address a racial gerrymander the court struck down in a previous map, put too much partisan intent into their redraw, drawing the lines to guarantee Republican victories in U.S. House races despite North Carolina's more purple political hue.

The court not only ordered the General Assembly to redraw districts over the next two weeks, it said it would appoint a special master to make maps on a parallel track. With filing in congressional races slated to begin Feb. 12, time is of the essence, the court said.

"In my opinion, Article I, Sections 2 and 4 (of the U.S. Constitution) set a clear limit on unconstitutional political gerrymandering," U.S. District Judge Osteen wrote. "When the legislature, through its redistricting plan, controls the outcome of the election, whether as a result of partisan consideration or another factor, the plan is unconstitutional."
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
both sides
In fairness, both sides certainly do it, although the GOP's abuse is far more widespread at the moment. It's a little frightening that the future of fair political representation in this country rests with a single member of the Supreme Court.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,877
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
In fairness, both sides certainly do it, although the GOP's abuse is far more widespread at the moment. It's a little frightening that the future of fair political representation in this country rests with a single member of the Supreme Court.
it's the false equivalence in the "both sides" mantra that i am mocking. "but timmy did it" is a foundational piece of gop p.r.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
it's the false equivalence in the "both sides" mantra that i am mocking. "but timmy did it" is a foundational piece of gop p.r.
Ah yes, the use of whataboutism to deter any corrective action whatsoever. A classic move of the modern GOP. And also Russia, unrelatedly.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
In fairness, both sides certainly do it, although the GOP's abuse is far more widespread at the moment. It's a little frightening that the future of fair political representation in this country rests with a single member of the Supreme Court.
They do. Maryland is horribly gerrymandered by the dem legislature. It should all be eliminated.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
First off, I oppose gerrymandering. Full stop.
Second, it's refreshing that a Federal judge would actually refer to the text of the Constitution.
Third, that text says, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators." Anti-federalists were vehemently opposed to the Constitution in part because of this clause. The Congress will abuse this authority, by declaring that the citizens of must vote at remote portions of the state and at inconvenient times. No, Congress won't, said the Federalists. It simply won't happen.
The judge's ruling does however, run roughshod over a very explicit provision of the Constitution, that "powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states or to the people."
Finally and most importantly a Federal judge has declared that North Carolina cannot look at racial demographics and voting tendencies when drawing district boundaries to minimize the impact that certain voters can have on an election. Only the Federal government can do that.

That said, I'd bet a computer program could easily spit out a map that would make more sense than including the northbound lane if I-85 (but not the southbound lane) in order to connect inner city Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Durham.
 

Tider@GW_Law

All-American
Sep 16, 2007
3,151
0
0
Sacramento, CA
First off, I oppose gerrymandering. Full stop.
Second, it's refreshing that a Federal judge would actually refer to the text of the Constitution.
Third, that text says, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators." Anti-federalists were vehemently opposed to the Constitution in part because of this clause. The Congress will abuse this authority, by declaring that the citizens of must vote at remote portions of the state and at inconvenient times. No, Congress won't, said the Federalists. It simply won't happen.
The judge's ruling does however, run roughshod over a very explicit provision of the Constitution, that "powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states or to the people."
Finally and most importantly a Federal judge has declared that North Carolina cannot look at racial demographics and voting tendencies when drawing district boundaries to minimize the impact that certain voters can have on an election. Only the Federal government can do that.

That said, I'd bet a computer program could easily spit out a map that would make more sense than including the northbound lane if I-85 (but not the southbound lane) in order to connect inner city Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Durham.
I think California's redistricting commission has done a good job. Aside from the early days, it has been remarkably non-controversial here. Here are a few of the salient points:

The Voters First Act and Voters First Act for Congress amended Article XXI section 2(d) of the California Constitution to establish a set of rank-ordered criteria that the Commission followed to create new districts:
  1. Population Equality: Districts must comply with the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of “one person, one vote”
  2. Federal Voting Rights Act: Districts must ensure an equal opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice
  3. Geographic Contiguity: All areas within a district must be connected to each other, except for the special case of islands
  4. Geographic Integrity: Districts shall minimize the division of cities, counties, local neighborhoods and communities of interests to the extent possible, without violating previous criteria. A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.
  5. Geographic Compactness: To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with previous criteria, districts must not bypass nearby communities for more distant communities
  6. Nesting: To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with previous criteria, each Senate district will be composed of two whole Assembly districts, Board of Equalization districts will be composed of 10 Senate districts.
In addition, incumbents, political candidates or political parties cannot be considered when drawing districts. Article XXI section 2(b) of the California Constitution also requires that the Commission “conduct an open and transparent process enabling full public consideration of and comment on the drawing of district lines.”
 

BamaInCummingGA#1

Scout Team
Jun 8, 2017
126
0
0
Cumming,GA
it's the false equivalence in the "both sides" mantra that i am mocking. "but timmy did it" is a foundational piece of gop p.r.
Are you that naïve or just that intentionally blinded? Both political parties are like this .......one just as much as the other. Yje only difference is that one party has the media machine in their pocket, thus free good PR, and the other gts the bad PR but in the end members of both parties are after one thing and that's power.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,877
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Are you that naïve or just that intentionally blinded? Both political parties are like this .......one just as much as the other. Yje only difference is that one party has the media machine in their pocket, thus free good PR, and the other gts the bad PR but in the end members of both parties are after one thing and that's power.
bless your heart
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.