No mention here yet of SCOTUS and NC Gerrymandering?

[gabester]

I'm surprised no one else here commented on it yet...

I was just starting to have a good feeling about the country's direction, with the unanimous decision from the appeals court and a couple other positive events, so for the Supes to turn around and put the kibosh on it when there is such a clear and present need to address partisan politics - and national risk what with the potential for foreign disinformation compaigns - but it sounds like they're going to make the voters wait to get their representation. I suppose the rationale is that, with the tax cuts in place, there's no need for representation either.

[sekker]

They accepted the Texas case at the same time.

I believe they want to make a comprehensive decision - and I cannot believe that's status quo.

[mattkime]

Yeah, I have no idea what to make of it. No fucking way this is an acceptable way of doing things. If you define how gerrymandered districts can be, they'll just go right up to the line. In retrospect, this was always a crazy way to do things, it just took a while for the necessary info to be available.

[sekker]

538 has a great recent set of podcasts on gerrymandering. I highly recommend.

[$tevie]

sekker wrote:
538 has a great recent set of podcasts on gerrymandering. I highly recommend.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Speedy]

The SCOTUS will vote 5-4 in favor of the status quo.

[$tevie]

Speedy, I have figured out who you are in real life!

[Speedy]

$tevie wrote:
Speedy, I have figured out who you are in real life!

What's there to feel good about?

[$tevie]

Don't let the bastards get you down.

[Lemon Drop]

.