Some Cities Object to Being Carved Up by Redistricting

[alp227]

Source: NYT

There are no guard towers, or Checkpoint Charlies, or even walls. But scores of American cities, counties and metropolitan areas are being divided again — splitting apart families, neighbors and, most important, voters with similar interests and needs — as states engage in the once-a-decade process of drawing the lines of new Congressional districts.

And mayors and local officials in many places are none too happy about it.

Austin, a liberal island in Texas that has long been carved into multiple districts, would still be divided in three under a plan that was drawn up last week by a Texas court. In North Carolina, where Republicans drew maps that are expected to give them a big advantage, a lawsuit complained that one of the new districts seeps into pieces of 19 different counties and has so many twists and turns that its perimeter is 1,319 miles long.

Toledo was splintered into three Congressional districts in the map that Ohio Republicans passed this fall — to the dismay of its mayor, Michael P. Bell, who worried that his city’s clout in Washington would be diluted if its representatives had to weigh the competing needs of different areas.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/us/politics/mayors-concerned-as-redistricting-carves-up-urban-areas.html?pagewanted=all

[No Elephants]

1. Redistricting always seems to favor Rethugs and other conservatives.

[totodeinhere]

14. We can thank the 2010 elections for that. The GOP took over control of several states in that

election which gives them the power to draw the lines. But in states controlled by Democrats often they have done the same thing. That's politics for you and it's another example of the consequence of elections.

[No Elephants]

17. This time, we can, yes.

And, in a state whose Governor is a Democrat and whose legislature is 96% or more Democratic, re-districting resulted in Barney Frank's resignation.

If my Rep. loses in 2012 as a result of this redistricting, I don'y know what I'll do!

[RKP5637]

2. IMO Redistricting sucks. I've always been against it and always will be. It's a

ridiculous system and creates division. IMO it's just F'en politics and often does little to serve the best interests of the people.

[DRoseDARs]

9. Are you opposed to "one person, one vote" because that's what redistricitng strives to maintain.

As the country's population grew, so did the membership of the House of Representatives. In 1929, Congress passed a law finally limiting that body's membership to 435 representatives. Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) pretty much solidified the notion of "one person, one vote" in our system. As of 2008, each Congressional district has to have as close to ~700,000 persons as possible; seems likely the 2010 Census will up that number further. The USC requires a Census every 10 years to determine representation in the House, so redistricting is absolutely a necessary part of the process. It can be corrupted by politics, but that's why we have courts and people bringing cases before them whenever a redistricting seems to miss the mark of what it is intended to do.

Here's an educational game people can play to get a better sense of just how hard it is to redistrict fairly.
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/

[RKP5637]

15. I have two concerns relative to redistricting. It appears corrupted by

politics, and in some states judges are voted in and that process is also sometimes being corrupted. Many people do not vote for judges, because it's too complicated to figure out who they really represent. Hence, a small core of people can move a disreputable and/or very biased judge into the courts.

[No Elephants]

18. Theory is one thing, practice is another. And doctrines like standing limit

judicial remedies severely.

It would also be one person, one vote" if a state's population entitled it to, for example, 12 reps and everyone voted for all 12. IOW, no districts or re-districting at all. If there are issues peculiar to my district, as opposed my state, I would have to trust my state's reps to represent them. I am willing to take that risk.

On edit: I guess that's a fairly safe position if one is from Massachusetts, as I am, but not so much in other states.

I retract the suggestion.

[MADem]

3. No shit. It sucks. There oughta be a law that you can't subdivide

a city or town, unless you cut it flat in half because the population is too large to support just one rep. When they carve it up to give a piece here, a piece there, and a piece to someone else, they're just trying to dilute power.

[pasto76]

4. doesnt florida have a voter passed law where they have to use common sense, natural boundaries?

gerrymandering is bullshit.

[2Design]

8. They did it anyway n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

6. Crazy idea; Have every county in the united states vote for their own representative

and when they get to D.C., their vote will be multiplied by whatever fraction of the overall US population the county population is.

Would be alot harder to gerrymander county lines, and everyones vote counts the same.

Or maybe a less radical solution would be to require district lines to follow county lines. If a county must be split in two, then it must not divide cities/towns/municipalities, unless it HAS to.

[mwooldri]

10. Crazier idea: no Congressional Districts.

This would work well with states that return a relatively small number of House Reps. Make it a simple statewide vote where the top X polling candidates get the seat. This could even lead to some independents and third parties entering into Congressional races and have a viable way of getting elected.

States that return more representatives can do this too but inevitably there would have to be some districting. Lump 5-10 present Congressional districts and make them "at large" districts - the top 5-10% of votes cast get elected.

House elections every 2 years - bleurgh. Too many elections. Cut down some costs, and get them doing governing and not campaigning by simply doing it every 4 years instead. Also term limits - an individual can only serve three consecutive terms - must sit out a 4 year period before going for office again.

[RKP5637]

16. I was thinking similar earlier and just saw your idea. By the county makes a lot

of sense to me, and it appears counties would have similar interests ... then your multiplier makes a lot of sense for balance. Too bad often the good ideas like yours don't get implemented for fairness. The way it is, I feel the system is all rigged.

[murielm99]

7. In Illinois, the redistricting favored the Democrats.

We are the majority here, so we did the redistricting.

The only law I know of that does anything about redistricting is a federal law. Minority districts cannot be wiped out, or put into other districts in a manner that wipes out all minority representation. Maybe there are other laws that I don't know about. But it seems that when the redistricting goes to court, the majority party wins.

[freshwest]

11. What about the mayor nearest that weird district pitting Kucinich and Kaptur against each other?

From everyone thing I've read, it was the most outrageous gerrymandering job ever by the Rethuglicans, clearly to eliminate one of these liberal politicians. Whatever way that goes, it's going to be a great loss to the people of their former districts.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[hedgehog]

12. The last time I looked, the Buffalo area was divided into three or four congressional

districts. There's one district that's about a mile wide and a hundred miles long along Lake Ontario!

[totodeinhere]

13. Federal law requires that minorities be protected during redistricting.

Sometimes that means drawing "creative" boundaries that might divide a city putting for instance a predominantly Latino neighborhood in one district and a predominantly black neighborhood in another.