And just think, gerrymandering started in Massachusetts.It’s not clear to me why ‘gerrymandering’ is legal at all.
SC has upheld certain versions, dismissed other versions.
You’ve seen the gerrymandered maps where it looks like an MRI of brain ganglia, why is that even a thing?
I mean, seriously?
This country is built on ‘inalienable rights’, but I guess adequate and appropriate representation of eligible voters isn’t a ‘right’.
Sad: rickyb + 1
It’s complicated and there’s no easy fix. Maps have to be redrawn after every census to account for population changes. Someone has to make the changes, the current problem is the data has gotten too good and voters have become more polarized and predictable. The population has been self-sorting into predictable democratic educated cities leaving the uneducated rubes covering the sticks. That makes it hard to create reasonable geographic districts that are competitive.It’s not clear to me why ‘gerrymandering’ is legal at all.
SC has upheld certain versions, dismissed other versions.
You’ve seen the gerrymandered maps where it looks like an MRI of brain ganglia, why is that even a thing?
I mean, seriously?
This country is built on ‘inalienable rights’, but I guess adequate and appropriate representation of eligible voters isn’t a ‘right’.
Sad: rickyb + 1
It’s complicated and there’s no easy fix. Maps have to be redrawn after every census to account for population changes. Someone has to make the changes, the current problem is the data has gotten too good and voters have become more polarized and predictable. The population has been self-sorting into predictable democratic educated cities leaving the uneducated rubes covering the sticks. That makes it hard to create reasonable geographic districts that are competitive.
I don't think it's legal, it's just whatever they can get away with.Right.
But it’s gotten to a point where it’s surgical, for no other reason than to promote one party or another.
Again, I’m not sure why it’s legal.
The trouble is that there are no national standards when it comes to drawing district maps. Federal courts for the most part have tried to stay out of the matter leaving it up to the states. However in some cases the gerrymandering has become so egregious that it was left with no choice but to get involved.I don't think it's legal, it's just whatever they can get away with.
It’s how maps have always been drawn. They’re just better at it now.Right.
But it’s gotten to a point where it’s surgical, for no other reason than to promote one party or another.
Again, I’m not sure why it’s legal.
Right.
But it’s gotten to a point where it’s surgical, for no other reason than to promote one party or another.
Again, I’m not sure why it’s legal.
Wrong!I don't think it's legal, it's just whatever they can get away with.
What happens when those are the same? As republicans become ever more the party of old white men how can one distinguish gerrymandering by race/sex from political party?SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering based on political affiliation is not within purview of the Federal Government.
Gerrymandering based on racial, sex, etc. is still within purview of the SCOTUS and other Federal courts.
It's up to that State's courts or legislature.What happens when those are the same? As republicans become ever more the party of old white men how can one distinguish gerrymandering by race/sex from political party?
In other words, a huge victory for States Rights!It's up to that State's courts or legislature.
The Supremes ruled a federal judge had no legal authority to draw maps.It's up to that State's courts or legislature.
I think you should reread the majority opinion.The Supremes ruled a judge had no legal authority to draw maps.
That was what I meant. The case was about federal judges redrawing maps.I think you should reread the majority opinion.
Not within purview of the Feferal Courts.
Zip your pants back upIn other words, a huge victory for States Rights!
You are just jealous because you don't live in a real State.Zip your pants back up
You took the time to edit your post but left this?I think you should reread the majority opinion.
Not within purview of the Feferal Courts.
"On the court’s final day of decisions before a summer break, the conservative justices ruled that federal courts have no role to play in the dispute over the practice known as partisan gerrymandering."