Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by charon on Thursday May 25, @07:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the careful-plotting dept.

The Washington Post reports Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts

The Supreme Court ruled [May 22] that North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature relied on racial gerrymandering when drawing the state's congressional districts, a decision that could make it easier to challenge other state redistricting plans.

The decision continued a trend at the court, where justices have found that racial considerations improperly tainted redistricting decisions by GOP-led legislatures in Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina. Some cases involved congressional districts, others legislative districts.

[...] [The justices] were unanimous in rejecting one of the districts and split 5 to 3 on the other.

AlterNet reports

Republican legislators used surgical precision to pack black voters into just two districts, the tentacular 1st and the snake-like 12th. The lower court found that these districts targeted voters on the basis of race in violation of the constitution, a move that effectively prevented black voters from electing their preferred candidates in neighboring seats. map

[...] This now-invalidated congressional map was one of, if not the very most, aggressive partisan gerrymanders in modern history. North Carolina is a relatively evenly divided swing state--Donald Trump won it by just 3 points last year--yet these lines offered Republicans 10 safe districts while creating three lopsidedly Democratic seats. Amazingly, all 10 Republican districts hit a perfect sweet spot with GOP support between 55 and 60 percent, a level that is high enough to be secure yet spreads around Republican voters just carefully enough to ensure the maximum number of GOP seats possible.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday May 25, @08:31AM (23 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday May 25, @08:31AM (#515353) Journal

    The most blatant case of gerrymandering I know of happens to also be racially motivated: Illinois' 4th congressional district [wikipedia.org].

    The argument in favor of having it gerrymandered like this is that there is a large population of folks with Hispanic origin, but they're not neatly packed into something that would resemble a normal congressional district.

    To me, that seems reasonable. There are enough folks with Hispanic origin to warrant a congressional seat - should they be forced to live inside a specific area to have any influence? Naah. Should their voice be heard? Well, if there's enough voters that favor a certain point of view, then yes, that point of view should be heard.

    Then again, I'm biased: where I'm from there are no districts. All votes count, nation-wide. It does not matter where you live, it only matters who you vote. So the idea that every politician with enough support, no matter where, gets a seat, fits the political system I'm most familiar with.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @08:40AM (22 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @08:40AM (#515355)

      If you make districts by race: you are racist and this is illegal!

      If you don't do that: your districts don't ensure that each race gets to "be heard" by being a majority in a district, so you are racist and this is illegal!

      Grrr. We should just make districts equal-area, ignoring state borders and minimizing the sum of the perimeters.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 25, @10:08AM (18 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25, @10:08AM (#515374) Homepage Journal

        Grrr. We should just make districts equal-area, ignoring state borders and minimizing the sum of the perimeters.

        How about we make them of equal population, given that's how districts are divided? But also create them as close to squares as possible, none of this snaking around and through based on party registrations.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Thursday May 25, @12:46PM (4 children)

          by SpockLogic (2762) on Thursday May 25, @12:46PM (#515421)

          If you want the voters to win then redistricting must be taken out of the hands of politicians. Politicians cannot be trusted not to look after their own sectarian interests above all else. An independent commission charged with creating compact, contiguous districts, that keep political units and communities within a single district would be the answer.

          • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday May 25, @01:25PM

            by EvilSS (1456) on Thursday May 25, @01:25PM (#515444)
            And who creates those independent commissions? The politicians? Yea, good luck with that. The voters? Hate to tell you, but they are just as partisan as the politicians. Even in "non-partisan" elections, the candidates usually fall into one of the two parties, if not officially.
          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @01:40PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @01:40PM (#515451)

            The alternative is what the person at the top of this thread said: eliminate districts. The constitution does not require them to exist. Each state is free to decide how to elect their representatives, which could be a state-wide at-large election along the lines of proportional representation. Or, as a half-way, in large states, make mega-districts that combine ~5 house seats into one larger district and do PR within that mega-district.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @05:54PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @05:54PM (#515582)

              It's a nice idea, but the problem is that there's generally no political will to make it happen.

              If either party has even a slight majority in a given state, that party, and thus the majority of people in the state, would much rather win all the seats in Congress (or as many as jerrymaniacally possible) than, say, 6 out 11 seats. So no matter which party is on top, the majority of people will probably support jerrymandering and jerrymander-prone districting procedures. (The exception, given a two-party system, might be a state so evenly divided that nobody knows who's on top, and both sides would rather split the seats than fight for all-or-nothing. But more likely, both parties will be sure that they have the edge, and both will favor all-or-nothing.)

              if you try to appeal to fairness above party interest, those who don't laugh at you will point out that all these other states (and they'll obviously pick examples that go to the opposite party) do use rules that leverage a small majority of voters into a large majority of congressional seats, and ask how it's "fair" that they unilaterally diminish their own power, giving those other states an unfair advantage.

              In a functioning representative democracy, there's more than two parties, and none of them usually has a majority of voters, so this sort of math doesn't apply -- any system that could be exploited to give any one party a disproportionate share of representatives, will be opposed by the majority of people.

              It's ironically depressing, then, to note that our system of winner-take-all districts instead of proportional representation is one of the main factors (though IMO a lesser one than our use of the FPP voting system for single-candidate races) that perpetuates our two-party system, and prevents us from having the functional democracy needed to muster any will to change it...

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday May 25, @05:34PM

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Thursday May 25, @05:34PM (#515568)

            What do you call someone wielding political power? The power to draw district lines is inherently political, the ones given the authority to do that will quickly become politicians even if you pick random names from a phone directory. Faster in fact if you do that since they will lack any hardening against the lobbyists who have an ax to grind in the decisions.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Thursday May 25, @01:49PM

          by Kromagv0 (1825) on Thursday May 25, @01:49PM (#515452) Homepage

          While it wouldn't result in square districts I have thought that a simple unsupervised clustering algorithm would be the best way to do redistricting. Put a few constraints on it to try and keep cities and counties together. Initially have the sitting elected representative's home be the center of the district. Then from there let it do clustering so that each district is equal size. After that recalculate the middle of the district and rerun the clustering. Keep going until it settles down to a minimal movement. If you gain or lose seats in a stat randomly remove a congress critter or randomly drop new centers on the map and start running it. I would also suggest having a couple of runs going that use random initial district centers. Then let the state legislature vote on which one of the 3 district maps they want.

          --
          T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday May 25, @07:18PM (2 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25, @07:18PM (#515640) Journal

          But also create them as close to squares as possible, none of this snaking around and through based on party registrations.

          Yes, this is generally popular. But it doesn't necessarily solve gerrymandering -- it merely changes the form. Witness what happened in Indiana [wikipedia.org] after the 2010 census. If you view the historical progression of district maps there since the 1970s, it appears that Indiana mostly has moved toward more "square"(-ish) districts over time. But Democrats argued after the 2013 redistricting that it would benefit Republicans (who have, by the way, gerrymandered the state legislative districts to a high degree) and mostly cement their seats by concentrating Democratic power in few regions that happen to contain the more urban (and more liberal) areas. So it looks more "fair," but is it?

          The problem, to my mind, is that we have two incompatible metrics of "fairness."
          (1) One metric says we need "compact" geographic districts, ones that perhaps line up with reasonable political and/or community boundaries, so that a representative is representing a coherent group of people geographically.

          (2) Another metric says we need parity between the parties, so that each party has roughly a chance of winning a number of seats equal to its respective proportion of the population STATEWIDE (or nationwide).

          These two goals are diametrically opposed. When you divide up data, you can create different outcomes for subsets compared to the overall data trend. This is well-known to anyone with basic familiarity with Simpson's paradox [wikipedia.org]. So, it's quite possible to produce a mathematically geographically "perfect" division by whatever metric that is supposedly politically neutral, and STILL have a situation where 60% of the nation votes for Democrats and Republicans win 55% of House seats (or vice versa, though the fact that Democrats tend to be concentrated in high-density population zones makes it somewhat more likely that they will suffer more under most "prefer squares" metrics).

          If we really want to satisfy both conditions, we'd need to do something much more radical, like allocate Congressional seats to each party on the basis of the fraction of the popular vote that each party gets nationwide (or at least statewide), as is done in some parliamentary systems [wikipedia.org]. That would eliminate much of the redistricting issue, but it would also radically change the idea that a local geographic population gets to choose its own preferred representative (and perhaps run afoul of the Constitution).

          • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday May 25, @07:25PM

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25, @07:25PM (#515646) Journal

            Sorry -- should have caught this before submitting, but for my first "metric" I meant: "ones that perhaps line up with reasonable municipal and/or community boundaries." (I meant "political boundaries" in the sense of county or city lines, etc., not according to political party affiliation.)

          • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 26, @01:41PM

            by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday May 26, @01:41PM (#515951) Journal

            The problem, to my mind, is that we have two incompatible metrics of "fairness."
            (1) One metric says we need "compact" geographic districts, ones that perhaps line up with reasonable political and/or community boundaries, so that a representative is representing a coherent group of people geographically.

            (2) Another metric says we need parity between the parties, so that each party has roughly a chance of winning a number of seats equal to its respective proportion of the population STATEWIDE (or nationwide).

            Allow me to reformulate those:
            1. Geographical districts
            2. Proportional representation statewide

            If you require the voting system to deliver these, then yes, these are opposed.
            #2 must be handled by the voting system to preserve some amount of fairness to the results.
            #1 doesn't - every candidate is free to say "I'm running on behalf of geographical region (x1,y1)-(x2,y2)! Except the folks at (x3,y3)!"
            So an easy solution to the issue you raised is to have elections with proportional representation: X seats in the house, the top X of the election get those seats.

            If #1 is actually important to people, then the "free market" will solve it. Candidates will find the optimum size of an area to represent and just claim that themselves. Voters who care about geographical representation might vote for them, others likely won't.
            If some of those candidates are elected, then apparently there is merit to #1. If not, then either no candidate found the right way to implement #1, or voters just care about other things more than about geographical representation.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @09:50PM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @09:50PM (#515728)

          Going by area is easy. Even better, just hold a contest and let the winner be the map with it's longest perimeter being smaller than that of any other proposed map. (What is your worst-case huge district? Is yours less awful than what your competition has? If so, your map wins and you get famous.)

          Going by population is hard. We can't reliably count people. We don't even know who is in the country.

          Squares are not appropriate. The ideal map is mostly hexagon-like shapes. (on a curved Earth surface so not really hexagons) You vote based on the location of the center of your property.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 26, @03:02AM

            by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 26, @03:02AM (#515807) Homepage Journal

            Going by area is easy. Even better, just hold a contest and let the winner be the map with it's longest perimeter being smaller than that of any other proposed map. (What is your worst-case huge district? Is yours less awful than what your competition has? If so, your map wins and you get famous.)

            Going by population is hard. We can't reliably count people. We don't even know who is in the country.

            That would be a great idea, if it weren't so moronic, given the long-held ideal of "one man, one vote" and not "one hectare, one vote." And then there's that pesky thing we call "the law" [cornell.edu] which requires 435 congressional districts split by *population* and not area. So....not so much.

            Squares are not appropriate. The ideal map is mostly hexagon-like shapes. (on a curved Earth surface so not really hexagons) You vote based on the location of the center of your property.

            Sure. hexagons would fill areas much more efficiently. My point was not to glorify any particular polygon, but point out that current congressional districts often look more like knotted up pasta than polygons. This is inappropriate in my view.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 26, @03:02AM (6 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 26, @03:02AM (#515808) Homepage Journal

            Going by area is easy. Even better, just hold a contest and let the winner be the map with it's longest perimeter being smaller than that of any other proposed map. (What is your worst-case huge district? Is yours less awful than what your competition has? If so, your map wins and you get famous.)

            Going by population is hard. We can't reliably count people. We don't even know who is in the country.

            That would be a great idea, if it weren't so moronic, given the long-held ideal of "one man, one vote" and not "one hectare, one vote." And then there's that pesky thing we call "the law" [cornell.edu] which requires 435 congressional districts split by *population* and not area. So....not so much.

            Squares are not appropriate. The ideal map is mostly hexagon-like shapes. (on a curved Earth surface so not really hexagons) You vote based on the location of the center of your property.

            Sure. hexagons would fill areas much more efficiently. My point was not to glorify any particular polygon, but point out that current congressional districts often look more like knotted up pasta than polygons. This is inappropriate in my view.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 26, @01:52PM (5 children)

              by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday May 26, @01:52PM (#515954) Journal

              Sure. hexagons would fill areas much more efficiently. My point was not to glorify any particular polygon, but point out that current congressional districts often look more like knotted up pasta than polygons. This is inappropriate in my view.

              This is inherent in any form of system-enforced geographical distribution of political power (i.e., districts).
              Using regular polygons is blatantly unfair: the 1000 square miles of desert with one voter gets 2 seats in the house, while the urban area with 4 towns and 1.5 million voters gets one seat.

              So, in any system that is based on geographical districts, the size and shape of those districts will be tweaked. There are benign reasons for that and there are malicious reasons for that, but since voters aren't uniformly distributed and since the boundaries of the election (i.e. the state or municipality) aren't perfectly fitting to polygons, the size and shape of districts needs to be tweaked. That problem is completely avoided with proportional representation: x% of the votes gets you x% of the seats. Every. Single. Time.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 26, @05:30PM (2 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 26, @05:30PM (#516040) Homepage Journal

                Sure. hexagons would fill areas much more efficiently. My point was not to glorify any particular polygon, but point out that current congressional districts often look more like knotted up pasta than polygons. This is inappropriate in my view.

                This is inherent in any form of system-enforced geographical distribution of political power (i.e., districts).
                Using regular polygons is blatantly unfair: the 1000 square miles of desert with one voter gets 2 seats in the house, while the urban area with 4 towns and 1.5 million voters gets one seat.

                I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you just don't realize how redistricting/gerrymandering has worked in the U.S. [govtrack.us]

                So, in any system that is based on geographical districts, the size and shape of those districts will be tweaked. There are benign reasons for that and there are malicious reasons for that, but since voters aren't uniformly distributed and since the boundaries of the election (i.e. the state or municipality) aren't perfectly fitting to polygons, the size and shape of districts needs to be tweaked. That problem is completely avoided with proportional representation: x% of the votes gets you x% of the seats. Every. Single. Time.

                I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're ignorant. In the U.S. congressional districts are divided *by population* and not by geography. The issues I mentioned WRT regular polygons wasn't a suggestion that such polygons be of equal area, but rather that they are of created in as compact and normalized a fashion as possible, without any consideration of *who* lives in those areas.

                In too many places, congressional districts have been drawn to divide members of the party(ies) not favored by the state legislatures in order to create districts where, regardless of how they vote, they are always a minority in that district.

                As such, when drawing district boundaries, intentionally splitting areas which would seem to create the most compact and normalized districts, in order to limit the voting blocs for specific parties, is malicious.

                I've often thought that proportional representation in our legislative bodies was a good idea. Not because I necessarily think a parliamentary system would be superior (I think that the separation of the legislative and executive branches is an excellent idea, which is lacking in parliamentary systems), but because it would allow more diverse voices into our legislative processes and the national debate.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 26, @06:16PM (1 child)

                  by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday May 26, @06:16PM (#516057) Journal

                  I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you just don't realize how redistricting/gerrymandering has worked in the U.S.

                  Neither, actually - I was talking about the implications of districting. These hold for the USA and for any other country that uses districting.

                  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're ignorant.

                  Thanks! Unfortunately, I'm not ignorant, so sorry about that.

                  I was talking about theory, you're talking about practice.

                  In a nutshell, when districting anywhere (including in the USA):
                  1. population size per district does not mandate a certain structure. Districts may be rotated, moved, or squished in one direction and elongated in another.
                  2. Since voters are not uniformly distributed and since the borders are not nice straight lines, any zoning algorithm will make some arbitrary choices.

                  For an example, see this image [wp.com]. Uniform density of voters, 4 districts, every voter voting purple or green. The most obvious point of this picture is to illustrate how choosing districts carefully can determine the result. But: the key thing for this discussion is this: it is impossible to say any of these divisions is intrinsically wrong. Sure, the bottom right looks fishy - but that doesn't mean that this must never be allowed to happen anywhere. In fact, I'm sure it's possible to come up with example settings that embed this division of voters where each of the districting options depicted leads to the most fair districts in the rest of the setting.

                  For example, say this image depicts the city centre, and outside the city centre voter density varies. Now if you start creating your districts from the city centre, you might get districts like shown in the top row of the picture. However, in case this is the last part of the state to be districted, you could conceivably end up with the lower right division.

                  I think that the separation of the legislative and executive branches is an excellent idea, which is lacking in parliamentary systems

                  The UK (to name but one) must be doing it wrong then [wikipedia.org]

                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 26, @07:16PM

                    by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 26, @07:16PM (#516087) Homepage Journal

                    I suspect that we may be in violent agreement here.

                    My concern WRT redistricting is one of the deliberate, active weakening of one voting bloc to benefit another.

                    There are many ways to look at that issue. My primary point is that *preferring* regular shapes (or reasonable combinations thereof) for districts can limit (but certainly not eliminate) attempts to create district boundaries that favor one group over another.

                    My (albeit limited) understanding is that in most parliamentary systems (and I thought this of the UK as well, but I could be wrong), was that the majority party (or coalition) in the legislature populated the executive roles from within its own ranks and those folks retained their seats in the legislative branch (i.e., the current Prime Minister [wikipedia.org] remains the MP for Maidenhead [wikipedia.org]).

                    In the U.S, by contrast, Jeff Sessions [wikipedia.org] was required to resign his legislative post as a Senator from Alabama, before he could take on his role as the U.S. Attorney General.

                    As such, Theresa May (the head of the U.K.'s executive) will cast votes on legislation in parliament as the MP for Maidenhead. In the U.S., with the (extremely rare) exception of the Vice President casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate, no executive branch member *ever* votes on legislation.

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27, @04:46AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27, @04:46AM (#516301)

                The rural area is getting screwed. Politicians find it easy to ignore the needs of the rural population. Going by area fixes it.

                If you are in an urban area and want more say, you can move. Now, you might say rural people should move, but this is harmful. Cities are unable to support themselves for food and water. It all has to be trucked in. This adds pollution that usually isn't even counted toward the city causing it. (the least-polluting is smallish cities with short commutes, not urban or true rural) Having people in urban areas is a disadvantage in war; they make easy targets.

                Anyway, you can't measure population well. It is estimated that California unjustly has an extra 5 seats in the house due to non-citizens being counted; this is a motivation to support crime. There is always a fight over counting the homeless.

                It's no good to have people drawing the lines either. If you use county lines, people will redraw the counties.

                A specified algorithm is decent, yet hard to get right. An easier solution is to make a contest out of it, specifying only a way to judge the contest entries.

                • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday May 27, @02:48PM

                  by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday May 27, @02:48PM (#516426) Journal

                  I'm just going to focus on one part of your reply that flummoxed me:

                  Anyway, you can't measure population well. It is estimated that California unjustly has an extra 5 seats in the house due to non-citizens being counted;

                  What? That's impossible. They must know who is allowed to vote. If they know this, then they can infer the total number of eligible voters.
                  Now I'll grant that that's a lower bound for the total number of inhabitants of the state, but:
                  1. does that matter? I.e.: is the number of seats in the house dependent on total number of voters or that of inhabitants?
                  2. If the latter: there are surely ways to extrapolate from total number of voters to total number of inhabitants in a better way.
                  (2a. If the latter: why don't you abolish that and use the total number of voters instead?
                                Since using inhabitants should basically be scaling the number of voters, it doesn't matter so much, so you can use that unfudged
                                number officially, and use an official scaling factor which will apply equally to all. )

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 25, @03:20PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25, @03:20PM (#515496) Journal

        "We should just make districts equal-area"

        I won't argue against that idea very hard. But, I think all districts should be county based. No matter what state you are from, the counties (or parishes) were established for economic or political reasons. Everything seems to be organized by county - the sheriff's office, police forces, schools, ambulance services, water service, and to some (limited) extent, electric service.

        I think that congresional districts should be based on the counties. Few if any districts make any sense to me.

        --
        This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 25, @06:08PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday May 25, @06:08PM (#515588)

          Doing it strictly by county would eliminate the hypothetical where the district where you're living makes it pointless for you to vote, you move one or two over to get solve the problem, then a few years later find you're back in the same district when they redraw the borders.

          Since our representatives have shown it's evidently impossible to draw the lines in a bipartisan manner, just locking it to counties solves that problem at least. Then we can start arguing about population-to-vote ratios and other stuff ;)

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 26, @02:02PM

            by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday May 26, @02:02PM (#515958) Journal

            Or you could just go for state-wide proportional representation. I.e.: a party with x% of the vote gets x% of the seats in the house.
            - No districts so no gerrymandering (no arguing about those)
            - No arguing about population-to-vote ratio: every vote counts equally throughout the state.
            - voting for third parties actually makes sense (if 1% of the voters vote for party C, they get 1% of the seats)

            The major downside compared to the current voting system is the lack of compartmentalisation: shenanigans in one polling station may affect the whole outcome.
            The typical solution is to count each polling station locally and publicly, and (publicly) aggregate the results to an intermediate level, which is then publicly aggregated to a next level, until the results are aggregated at the state level.
            Problems then still have to be pointed to geographically (something went wrong *there*).

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @11:11AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @11:11AM (#515388)

    When are they going to tackle Maryland's [wikipedia.org] gerrymandering? Since it benefits Democrats I wouldn't expect anytime soon.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 25, @12:57PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25, @12:57PM (#515432) Journal
      The ruling can be applied now to Maryland districting. Nor has the Supreme Court favored Democrats in the past. Further, North Carolina congressional districts have been even worse [governing.com] than Maryland ones.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @05:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @05:24PM (#515561)

      When are they going to tackle Maryland's [wikipedia.org] gerrymandering? Since it benefits Democrats I wouldn't expect anytime soon.

      As well as the gerrymandering in Illinois.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @05:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, @05:37PM (#515570)

      "Waah waah they're bad tooooo" says the snowflake who has only expectations.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday May 25, @05:57PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 25, @05:57PM (#515583)

      > Since it benefits Democrats I wouldn't expect anytime soon.

      President: Trump
      House: republican
      Senate: republican
      SCOTUS: 5-4 conservative

      WTF are you talking about?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday May 25, @05:44PM

    by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Thursday May 25, @05:44PM (#515573)

    So if you ignore race the SCOTUS has ruled in the past that you are a racist. In my state we are under court order to create a certain quantity of 'majority minority' Congressional Districts for example. But now if you do it too much, i.e. if you don't disenfranchise enough white people by mapping them into those 'majority minority' districts where their vote is a piss in the wind of the machine that is assured to produce yet another jewel of idiocy like Mad Maxine, you are also racist. But all of that is merely squid ink for we all know the actual logic employed, if a map gets more Democrats elected it is acceptable, otherwise not.

    And this problem will continue to exist as long as we allow the Judiciary to be this overtly political and free of any attempt to check the excesses by the other two branches. Look at SCOTUS, you can predict the vote with very high confidence by the party label. We have two warring concepts of Justice, American and Progressive and Progressive jurisprudence has no rules, only Power and the Will to use it. Impeachment would be the preferred method but helicopter rides may be the only viable way to save even the semblance of the Rule of Law at this point. Yea I'm at the destroy the village to save it point.

(1)