TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

Aryeh Jay said:

Thanks for Fetterman.

Click to expand...

To be fair, John Fetterman had had an ischemic stroke in May 2022. His personality (and politics?) may have been affected.

Pommer said:

To be fair, John Fetterman had had an ischemic stroke in May 2022. His personality (and politics?) may have been affected.

Click to expand...

What a world we live in. Flags can make you gay, strokes make you Republicans. I guess that would explain individual number one and their behavior.

Aryeh Jay said:

What a world we live in. Flags can make you gay, strokes make you Republicans.

Click to expand...

I could see how one could suggest that that was what I meant, even though I would never imply that people (with some slight damage to their brains), would become Republicans. (Or vice-versa)

Aryeh Jay said:

I guess that would explain individual number one and their behavior.

Click to expand...

I was unaware that that person had had an ischemic stroke.

Pommer said:

I could see how one could suggest that that was what I meant, even though I would never imply that people (with some slight damage to their brains), would become Republicans. (Or vice-versa)

I was unaware that that person had had an ischemic stroke.

Click to expand...

I knew what you meant. Just a poor attempt at humor. Must be all the good food the Navy says we are getting.

Aryeh Jay said:

I knew what you meant. Just a poor attempt at humor.

Click to expand...

The joke worked, I’ll grant you, but placing it in sharp-relief with my “defensive posture” brings it home.

Aryeh Jay said:

Must be all the good food the Navy says we are getting.

Click to expand...

Plenty of ketchup and Spam?

Pommer said:

Plenty of ketchup and Spam?

Click to expand...

All the delicious canned processed meats we desire. The gray peas with carrots and honey aren't bad either.

JSRG said:

Not as far as I remember, so would you be willing to answer my question?

Click to expand...

Starting with post 37

Say it aint so said:

Starting with post 37

Click to expand...

I remember that one now, but it isn't actually supporting your claim. What you said in this topic was:

"There is a bill to legislate gerrymandering illegal. It was drafted by the Dems and shut down by the Reps; every time.
It's almost as if one has to use gerrymandering to increase their power so they can use it to make gerrymandering illegal.
That is of course if it doesn't get shot down by the conservative SCOTUS which it has been, and is about to take another hit."

The case you cited there--Shelby County v. Holder--didn't strike down anything that made gerrymandering illegal. It was about whether it was constitutional to require specific states (those states determined based on 40-year-old data) to have any changes to voting laws reviewed before they could take effect. The point of the law in question was to make it so that when states tried to engage in illegal racially discriminatory voting practices, you wouldn't have to go through the convoluted process of taking them to court over it to stop them (during which they might be enforcing said illegal racially discriminatory voting practices before they got declared illegal by courts). Racial gerrymandering was a relatively minor part of that--it was more about things that made it harder to vote--but it was somewhat affected by it (in the linked topic I said it wasn't at all; that was not entirely accurate in retrospect, but it was still more about things making it harder to actually cast a vote than the question of vote dilution in gerrymandering).

However, as noted, racial gerrymandering is still prohibited after Shelby County v. Holder, the only effect of that was that it's a lengthier process to argue something is a racial gerrymander. Shelby County v. Holder didn't change what was prohibited. So this wasn't striking down anything that made racial gerrymandering illegal, and didn't have anything to do with partisan gerrymandering, which is what is going on in Texas/California/Virginia right now. Furthermore, the law struck down didn't even apply to most states, including some of the most heavily gerrymandered ones.

As for the "and is about to take another hit" that is presumably in reference to Louisiana v. Callais, which hasn't been decided. As far as I understand the case, what is going on here is that we have a racial gerrymander, but that it's a racial gerrymander to try to aid minorities in getting elected, and the question is whether that's constitutional. It looks to me similar to the question of affirmative action, namely it's racial discrimination with the goal of aiding disadvantaged minority groups, so it's the question of whether racial discrimination is constitutional when used to aid disadvantaged groups.

But if the SCOTUS rules for Louisiana, that would, as far as I understand the decision, be saying that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, whether it's "good" or "bad" racial gerrymandering. Again, it's not a case of striking down any law prohibiting racial gerrymandering, ironically it's about possibly striking down a law that seems to require racial gerrymandering (at least, of the positive kind).

So I don't think these fit the descriptions you gave, as neither the portion in Shelby County actually prohibited gerrymandering (at most, its striking down made it easier for certain states to get away with racial gerrymandering, whereas all of this is partisan) and the current case would be saying you can't racially gerymander even if for a good cause.

But perhaps most importantly, in regards to the question of SCOTUS striking down a ban on partisan gerrymandering, I don't see it. The results of neither case seem to have much at all to do, legally, with a question of a legislative ban on partisan gerrymandering, which would be perfectly fine if Congress were to get its act together and actually pass it. I still believe the best way to do so would be to set some kind of a geometric requirement to make districts more compact. For example, one could require maps to be made with the smallest Polsby-Popper Test score known to be possible at the time of the creation of the districts that also fulfills the equal population requirement for districts. The key point is you make an objective geometrical requirement which makes it essentially impossible to gerrymander.

Pommer said:

As I recall, you’re a (fellow) Pennsylvanian. I, too, left the Republican Party* (in 2018), but felt the need to switch to Democratic Party for the simple reason that our beloved commonwealth has closed primaries, and felt my participation in the electoral process deserved more than just voting in the General Elections.

*an admittedly Rockefeller Republican

Click to expand...

Yes, I am also in PA, and one of the drawbacks to my independent registration is that I can no longer vote in primaries. Unfortunately for me, neither party is representative of my values, so I cannot in good conscience be associated with either of them, even if that means I lose some of my influence in the electoral process.

probinson said:

Yes, I am also in PA, and one of the drawbacks to my independent registration is that I can no longer vote in primaries. Unfortunately for me, neither party is representative of my values, so I cannot in good conscience be associated with either of them, even if that means I lose some of my influence in the electoral process.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I think that after this spring election I may switch back (again) to the good ol’ GOP, voting for non-MAGA’s and traditional Republican candidates.
Principled self-disenfranchisement doesn’t suit me; it’s fine though if that’s the stance you need to take.
Fare thee well.