+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat (/showthread.php?tid=252423)
NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - deckeda - 02-01-2021
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/politics/gerrymander-census-democrats-republicans.html
Both parties would probably love to do it but only one has spent years aggressively achieving it (with hard plans for 2022 already publicized.)
If Democrats ever get a supermajority again we need an Amendment passed that structures districts clearly. Leaving this up to the states, when it has far-reaching national consequences, has proven bad.
Re: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - Ombligo - 02-01-2021
An amendment takes more than Congress, you need 37 states to pass it as well. Fat chance of that happening.
Only the courts can fix it and the current SCOTUS has clearly shown it has no desire to do so.
Re: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - rjmacs - 02-01-2021
deckeda wrote:
If Democrats ever get a supermajority again we need an Amendment passed that structures districts clearly.
Details? This is an issue that always gets ugly in the details.
Re: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - Ted King - 02-01-2021
I didn't read the Times article (no subscription), so it might have mentioned this, but in case it didn't:
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court
In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.
The ruling puts the onus on the legislative branch, and on individual states, to police redistricting efforts.
"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the conservative majority. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."
Re: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - Acer - 02-02-2021
The consequence of gerrymandering is the loss of political power disproportionate to the population. After a certain point, it's impossible to vote your representatives back in. At that point, there is no longer a political solution available to you.
Re: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - Ted King - 02-02-2021
Acer wrote:
The consequence of gerrymandering is the loss of political power disproportionate to the population. After a certain point, it's impossible to vote your representatives back in. At that point, there is no longer a political solution available to you.
...there is no longer a political solution available to you and there is no more democracy.
Re: NYT outlines the gerrymander threat - mattkime - 02-02-2021
This is bound to get ugly.