Judges: Redistricting OK in mid-decade

[TakebackAmerica]

http://news9sanantonio.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=7770

This will probably go to the Supreme Court.

[David__77]

1. If upheld, we must learn from this experience.

It means that Democrats must block redistricting whenever is would be disadvantageous and await better political conditions.

[TakebackAmerica]

4. yes..

Democrats should take advantage of this. We need to fight back. We have to play by their rules now.

[punpirate]

9. Okay, exactly how does that blocking occur...

... if the Republicans gain enough for, effectively, one-party rule (which has almost happened in Texas--the Democrats had to leave the state to prevent a quorum)? And, they still eventually lost the redistricting vote.

The Democrats can't block anything without a relative balance of power, and this particular redistricting plan is designed to further upset that balance of power.

Still, this ruling simply says it's permissible to redistrict--it doesn't speak to the kind of redistricting done. Gross, obvious, gerrymandering is still not quite kosher. When the courts say that's okay, we're really and truly screwed....

[pmbryant]

12. Partisan gerrymandering has always been kosher

Racial gerrymandering is not, thanks to the Voting Rights Act.

But there is an 'extreme' partisan gerrymandering case before the Supreme Court now (involving Pennsylvania). I am hoping the SC wakes up and does something about this for once.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the case, but the arguments were heard just a week or two ago.

--Peter

[damnraddem]

13. If it stands it means that wherever Dems have the ability ...

they can redistrict at will to help themselves and hurt the GOP.

Hey, in the long run, the only ones who will lose will be the voters.

[TakebackAmerica]

2. Thiis is a major victory for the GOP.

Because, if mid-decade redistricing is fine, they can expand on thisin other states.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will set things right.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Yeah

Just like they set the 2000 election right.:puke:

[tom_paine]

18. One thin line seperating us from the abyss of Totalitarianism

And you've got to be crazy if you think the Felonious Five on the Judicial Arm of the Coup won't be taking their orders from the Imperial Family on this one.

They can play at being judges all they like, but when push comes to shove, they are loyal to the Imperial Family above all else, partiularly Fat Tony Scalia, Slappy Thomas, and Bill "Poll Test" Rhenquist...

[pmbryant]

3. That really sucks, though hardly surprising

I'm really hoping the Supreme Court forces redistricting reform in a major way. The Pennsylvania case before them now is a good chance for that.

This re-redistricting is a complete disgrace and hopefully they will do something about that as well.

--Peter

[demvoter]

5. Is this a good strategy?

I read on another forum that people who are in danger of having redistricting in their area should register (ONLY) as a repub and of course vote DEMOCRAT. However registering as a repub was supposed to prevent redistricting. Anyone tell me if this is true?

Thanks

[spotbird]

8. To all, it would be a huge mistake to answer this question.

If such a plan is underway it is illegal and the last thing anyone should do is give the criminals more ammunition. Drop it.

[pmbryant]

10. How in the world would this be illegal?

In my state, we don't register by party so this would be impossible.

But I don't see how it would be illegal to register in one party and vote for the other.

:shrug:

--Peter

[spotbird]

6. If the redistricting was "legal"

was the map that was drawn also ok with the court.

Also, wouldn't it be cheaper to just skip elections?

[Peachhead22]

11. They want redistricting willy-nilly?

Hey, maybe we should just go for it. Redistrict in every state where we have a majority in the state legislatures, then in a few years, if it's politically advantageous, redistrict again...and again, ad nauseum. They want to play that game, fine! Fight fire with fire instead of whining "that's not fair". We're too meak and fair-minded for our own good.

We need to get more of the American people pissed at the current state of politics. Chances are, once they educate themselve beyond what they hear on Faux news, more will be pissed at the 'Pubs than us.

[TankLV]

14. You got that right!

If they let this stand & want to play that game, let's play to win!

Got to get dem states with a dem majority & governor to initiate this all over the place!

THIS IS WAR!

Fuck the repukes!

[TakebackAmerica]

16. right on!

Sadly, there aren't many, "dem states with a dem majority & governor," left.

[Peachhead22]

20. stupid question

I've got a stupid question. Does it require a Dem Governor? Can't the legislature override a Gov?

I'm thinking specifically about Ct. We have a 'Pub Governor Rowland (for the time being, he's in a major scandal) . Overall it's a heavily Democratic state, but we have Rep. Rob Simmons (I friggen hate him), and Reps. Shays and Nancy Johnson. That's three potential seats right there.

[pmbryant]

21. Presumably the Governor can veto

So unless Dems have a veto-proof legislative majority (2/3?), we are out of luck in Connecticut.

--Peter

[pinto]

15. this will be a good one to see in this Supreme Court. The law is clear

concerning apportionment (actual number of Representatives to Congress) based on 10 year census figures, but..from articles I've read about redistricting (adjusting district boundaries without changing total # of reps)..Texas constitution is vague, except (as required by the Federal Voter Registration Act) when redistricting could be shown to exclude racial minorities from representation. That was the original Democratic argument, which was denied. Redistricting in this case is obviously for political gain, but Texas constitution doesn't seem to specifically address that possibility, nor does US Constitution.

Most states are probably likewise vague in their laws....seems to be an ongoing, insiders game everywhere.

[donco6]

17. Odd. Colorado ruled the opposite

No redisticting apart from the decade. Hmmm.

[Frodo]

19. Different state constitutions.

I also suspect that the title of this article is not quite accurate. I need to read the actual opinion, but they could easily be saying "THIS redistricting is OK since the legislature hasn't drawn the lines yet" If they previous lines HAD been drawn in the Constitutionally mandated fashion I would bet that they would have ruled that they could NOT be re-drawn.

Colorado's Constitution actually gives specific dates that the legislature can draw boundaries. And even that case is being appealed (with some small chance of being overturned).