SCOTUS VS VIRGINIA GERRYMANDERING

[Old Man Jingles]

Zip your pants back up

Does this mean you are through?

 

[Turdferguson]

Does this mean you are through?

I just know your feelings on state rights

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I just know your feelings on state rights

I believe in the Constitution and especially the 10th amendment.

 

[bacha29]

I thought that there was another state beside Virginia that had a similar situation . Looked it up. it was Pennsylvania and the so called "Rocky and Bullwinkle map because it was drawn in such a gerrymandered way that it truly did look like them. Anyway Pa state supreme court threw it out and told the GOP to come back in 3 weeks with a revised map but similar to what they did in VA the GOP came back with almost the same damn thing which so insulted and with good reason the state supreme court to such a degree that it threw that one out and drew up one of it's own
The Pa GOP then went crying to the GOP SCOTUS who looked at the new Pa court drawn map and in essence said: " Hmm,doesn't look too bad to us and therefore we're not getting into it". Haven't heard a word about it at least on the national news since then.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I thought that there was another state beside Virginia that had a similar situation . Looked it up. it was Pennsylvania and the so called "Rocky and Bullwinkle map because it was drawn in such a gerrymandered way that it truly did look like them. Anyway Pa state supreme court threw it out and told the GOP to come back in 3 weeks with a revised map but similar to what they did in VA the GOP came back with almost the same damn thing which so insulted and with good reason the state supreme court to such a degree that it threw that one out and drew up one of it's own
The Pa GOP then went crying to the GOP SCOTUS who looked at the new Pa court drawn map and in essence said: " Hmm,doesn't look too bad to us and therefore we're not getting into it". Haven't heard a word about it at least on the national news since then.

Don't forget Maryland where the Dimwits did the same thing.
As Dims win back more state houses, they will gerrymander their districts as well.
It's a pendulum swinging back and forth ...
30 years a go, the Dims were more 'guilty' of gerrymandering than the Repugs.

 

[It will be fine]

Don't forget Maryland where the Dimwits did the same thing.
As Dims win back more state houses, they will gerrymander their districts as well.
It's a pendulum swinging back and forth ...
30 years a go, the Dims were more 'guilty' of gerrymandering than the Repugs.

Same as it ever was.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I believe in the Constitution and especially the 10th amendment.

Same as it ever was.

Yep ... except some clarity on the subject.
Ain't none of the GD National Government's business!
Hip, hip hooray!

 

[Old Man Jingles]

You took the time to edit your post but left this?
Freaking sad

Somebody's bitterness is showing.

 

[It will be fine]

Yep ... except some clarity on the subject.
Ain't none of the GD National Government's business!
Hip, hip hooray!

There is a reasonable argument to made when voters are disenfranchised by the maps. A party receiving 30% of the total vote controlling 70% of the legislature for example. That shows the voters want a change but are not allowed to exercise their power. I think that’s a problem and a state wouldn’t fix that on their own. The question is how is that measured and who decides what’s too far. It’s not reasonable to claim there’s a state legislative solution when power has been so dramatically consolidated against the will of the electorate.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

There is a reasonable argument to made when voters are disenfranchised by the maps. A party receiving 30% of the total vote controlling 70% of the legislature for example. That shows the voters want a change but are not allowed to exercise their power. I think that’s a problem and a state wouldn’t fix that on their own. The question is how is that measured and who decides what’s too far. It’s not reasonable to claim there’s a state legislative solution when power has been so dramatically consolidated against the will of the electorate.

Your scenario is highly unlikely.
However, if it is problematic, the state courts can step in.
Only Federal courts are not allowed.

 

[It will be fine]

Your scenario is highly unlikely.
However, if it is problematic, the state courts can step in.
Only Federal courts are not allowed.

I guess that’s fair. So the theory is there can be judicial review but it has to be at the state level not federal unless the maps violate federal voting rights legislation? I think I’m onboard with that.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I guess that’s fair. So the theory is there can be judicial review but it has to be at the state level not federal unless the maps violate federal voting rights legislation? I think I’m onboard with that.

I think that was the essence of the SCOTUS ruling today.

 

[rod]

Interesting vote within the SCOTUS ...
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion and was joined by
Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.

Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Damn--Ginsburg is still functioning?