Redistricting--Even Worse Than I Feared

[Fantine]

This article addresses how narrow the opportunities to fight gerrymandering designed to insure majority white districts in many states. It also shows how desperately we need the Voting Rights Act which is stuck in the Senate due to Manchin and filibustering.
Samuel Alito’s False Call To Return The Issue Of Abortion To ‘The People’ | HuffPost Latest News
(This article isn't really about abortion--it's about democracy and Republican efforts to insure their state legislative 'faux-majorities.')

In the 2015 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission case, Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas joined a dissent written by Roberts that argued independent redistricting commissions created to draw competitive, nonpartisan district maps were unconstitutional. They were on the losing side then, but would probably be on the winning side today.

That’s because of the interest of at least four conservative justices in the independent state legislature doctrine. This dubious doctrine states the U.S. Constitution forbids any entity besides a state’s legislature from having any say on the matter of elections. This would not only make independent redistricting commissions unconstitutional, but it would also ban state courts from reviewing state election laws or district maps for any violations of a state’s constitution. The public would then have no way left to challenge the power of partisan state legislatures to draw their own districts. This position has the support of Alito, Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh has stated that the court must take up a case on the issue.

 

[Andrewn]

This article addresses how narrow the opportunities to fight gerrymandering designed to insure majority white districts in many states. It also shows how desperately we need the Voting Rights Act which is stuck in the Senate due to Manchin and filibustering.
Samuel Alito’s False Call To Return The Issue Of Abortion To ‘The People’ | HuffPost Latest News
(This article isn't really about abortion--it's about democracy and Republican efforts to insure their state legislative 'faux-majorities.')

Which side can you trust to sustain democracy:

"I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad... I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them," Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference.

Clarence Thomas says 'tremendously bad' abortion draft leak changed the Supreme Court 'forever'

Pro-choice advocates protest nationwide after Supreme Court Roe v. Wade draft leak

 

[Fantine]

When the first three estates (executive, legislative, and judicial) become corrupted, we need to rely on the fourth estate to expose the corruption.

What can be more corrupt than manipulating voting districts so that a minority of (almost all white) voters consistently wind up with 60%+ representation in state legislators--while statewide offices usually go to Democrats?

And then for four members (so far) of the Supreme Court saying that "independent commissions" couldn't set up election districts because it was in the hands of the "undemocratically elected legislatures representing majority white gerrymandered districts."

 

[Desk trauma]

Which side can you trust to sustain democracy:

"I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad... I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them," Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference.

Clarence Thomas says 'tremendously bad' abortion draft leak changed the Supreme Court 'forever'

Good news Clarance, you can help stop those undermining our democracy without leaving home. Have a talk with your wife.

 

[JSRG]

And then for four members (so far) of the Supreme Court saying that "independent commissions" couldn't set up election districts because it was in the hands of the "undemocratically elected legislatures representing majority white gerrymandered districts."

No member of the Supreme Court ever gave that quote as far as I can tell, given that a search turns up zero matches for it. I'm confused why you put it in quotations if it's not a quote.

You don't specify what you're referring to here. Given your phrasing, I suspect that it's a reference to Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, as there were 4 justices in dissent, but your phrasing also implies there are four members of the current court who say so, but one of those four justices is no longer on the Court. So I'm not sure. I'm going to assume it's Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and I apologize in advance if you're referring to something else.

If this is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, then this is a misrepresentation. The case there was not whether an independent commission could set it up or not. It was whether an independent commission could do so without being directly set up by the legislature itself, as the commission's establishment bypassed the legislature by being enacted by a ballot initiative (the Constitution states "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"). To say that the Supreme Court declared that independent commissions couldn't be set up at all is to simply misrepresent the whole thing.

The "four justices" is not accurate either. While four (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) did sign onto the dissent that argued that the independent commission in this case couldn't be set up without the legislature doing so directly, Scalia (joined by Thomas) wrote a separate dissent saying that the whole thing wasn't a matter for the Court to resolve at all, as there was no standing. This would therefore dismiss the case entirely and leave the commission in place, giving essentially the same result. He wrote he joined the main dissent simply because he thought the majority opinion made so little sense that he felt obligated to sign onto the dissent for that reason, more as a symbolic gesture.

 

[Fantine]

Kavanaugh said he would consider a similar case.

If the legislatures are corrupt and gerrymandering they will never imperil their little fiefdom.

Read the article.

 

[JSRG]

Kavanaugh said he would consider a similar case.

If the legislatures are corrupt and gerrymandering they will never imperil their little fiefdom.

Read the article.

The article doesn't have the quotes you offered either. If they were your own interpretation that's fine, but you shouldn't put them in quotation marks like that if they're not actual quotes.

Anyway, in the article, its representation of the case I mentioned is not exactly accurate:

"In the 2015 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission case, Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas joined a dissent written by Roberts that argued independent redistricting commissions created to draw competitive, nonpartisan district maps were unconstitutional. They were on the losing side then, but would probably be on the winning side today."

As noted, they didn't argue that independent redistricting commissions were unconstitutional. It was only when they bypass the legislature, which was the case here. And while Thomas did join the dissent, it ignores the fact he also joined Scalia's dissent--which said the legislature lacked standing, which would have dismissed the case and left the commission in place (the joining of the main dissent was because the opinion was seen as so badly argued it should be joined anyway). Unless Thomas has expressed otherwise in subsequent decisions, he views the issue as lacking standing and the Court cannot strike down such commissions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A fair maps success story or 'multi-layered stages of Dante's Inferno'? Where redistricting commissions worked -- and didn't work -- this cycle

Michigan's commission -- a citizen-driven entity that was set up by a 2018 ballot initative -- was seen as a notable success story in how it produced redistricting plans that will be competitive for Democrats in a purple state that previously saw extreme GOP-favored gerrymandering.

On the flip side was Ohio, where the redistricting system was also overhauled by a voter-approved 2018 constitutional amendment. That commission -- which was made up entirely of elected politicians, a majority of whom are Republican -- has seen its maps repeatedly rejected by the state Supreme Court for its failure to meet the requirements of the reform initiative.

"Ohio is sort of like the poster child for like the worst of all worlds,"

Ohio's map, despite being unconstitional, will be used in 2022 because the Ohio GOP has run out the clock without voting on any alternative.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Happy Juneteenth, Louisiana

After the Louisiana GOP ended the legislative session two days early on Saturday without drawing up a map, the Governor expressed his disappointment in a public statement.

"It is disappointing that after every opportunity to do the right thing and create a second majority African-American Congressional district as ordered by the U.S. Court for the Middle District, the Legislature has once again failed to do so," Edwards said in a statement.

This abrupt adjourning of the legislative session comes after a federal judge had ordered a map with two majority Black districts to be made by June 20.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This article addresses how narrow the opportunities to fight gerrymandering designed to insure majority white districts in many states. It also shows how desperately we need the Voting Rights Act which is stuck in the Senate due to Manchin and filibustering.
Samuel Alito’s False Call To Return The Issue Of Abortion To ‘The People’ | HuffPost Latest News
(This article isn't really about abortion--it's about democracy and Republican efforts to insure their state legislative 'faux-majorities.')

What do white majority districts do?

White people overwhelmingly voted in Obama. White people voted in Trump. White people voted in Biden. It's pretty safe to say that whomever wins the next election, it will be because a lot of white people voted for them.

Specifically the older, middle aged white man, is the largest voting block in the nation. Arguably the most fickle. What's the issue?

Do you think all white people are the same? Do you have some deep seeded fear of white people?

 

[Ana the Ist]

When the first three estates (executive, legislative, and judicial) become corrupted, we need to rely on the fourth estate to expose the corruption.

What can be more corrupt than manipulating voting districts so that a minority of (almost all white) voters consistently wind up with 60%+ representation in state legislators--while statewide offices usually go to Democrats?

And then for four members (so far) of the Supreme Court saying that "independent commissions" couldn't set up election districts because it was in the hands of the "undemocratically elected legislatures representing majority white gerrymandered districts."

Those first three estates were corrupted under Clinton....when he passed both the communities reinvestment act (or whatever its called) which asked banks to find new products to loan to riskier communities....aka minorities. Sub-prime mortgages and the incentives for selling them was the result.

As for wall street itself....they got the financial sector deregulated....if you don't understand the tit for tat nature of this deal, you don't understand politics.

The results of this are millionaires becoming billionaires and the average person got nothing....except a far riskier market they didn't understand. The minorities these loans were created to help? They got robbed.

The bankers who robbed them? Bailed out.

We got a republican president afterwards but frankly, it makes no real difference now. Both sides work for the interests of big companies and finance.

That's the only hope they have of being elected.

 

[KCfromNC]

What do white majority districts do?

Already answered in post #3 :

"a minority of (almost all white) voters consistently wind up with 60%+ representation in state legislators--while statewide offices usually go to Democrats"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Already answered in post #3 :

"a minority of (almost all white) voters consistently wind up with 60%+ representation in state legislators--while statewide offices usually go to Democrats"

The first example the article gives is Wisconsin lol. They complain that Republicans got 60% of the seats.

Wisconsin is over 80% white.

While I don't really have time to break down how statistics are used to deceive people, I will say my point stands. White people vote for both parties.

 

[KCfromNC]

While I don't really have time to break down how statistics are used to deceive people, I will say my point stands.

Well, that's certainly convincing.