https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102683460/

The court has accepted partisan gerrymanders. Now with liberals failing in the states, a liberal Wisconsin court ruled partisan gerrymanders illegal. Could be a very significant case if Kennedy and the liberals throw out prior precedent.

...Democrats do likewise where they control the line-drawing process, such as in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts. But they have all the levers of power in just six states; Republicans control 25 states, with 197 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.
As a result, congressional lines have become ever more partisan in recent years. In 2012, Republicans won 53% of the vote but 72% of the House seats in states where they drew the lines. Democrats won 56% of the vote but 71% of the seats where they controlled the process.
A federal district court in Wisconsin ruled 2-1 in November that election districts drawn by Republicans discriminated against Democratic voters "by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats." It demanded that the legislature draw new district lines by this November....

The Courts can only screw this kind of thing up by giving some nebulous line that nobody will know when they have crossed and can't be used to actively ensure no problems arise.

Do states have control of their lines or the feds? This is leading us down a road where the feds are just going to draw all the districts

(06-19-2017 11:35 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Do states have control of their lines or the feds? This is leading us down a road where the feds are just going to draw all the districts

States

It'll be a meaningless ruling unless the address the mandated "minority-majority" districts because they are the most gerrymandered districts of them all. Jim Clyburn's district narrows down at one point in Columbia to where it's only 1.4 miles wide to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods.

(06-19-2017 12:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It'll be a meaningless ruling unless the address the mandated "minority-majority" districts because they are the most gerrymandered districts of them all. Jim Clyburn's district narrows down at one point in Columbia to where it's only 1.4 miles wide to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods.

That's a problem in the South a panel of people in Wisconsin would not be considering.

Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

(06-19-2017 01:51 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

Yeah, right, because the courts are non-partisan.

(06-19-2017 01:51 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

(06-19-2017 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:51 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

Yeah, right, because the courts are non-partisan.

Less so than the legislative or executive branches, at least they might be able to do it without it being struck down for racially discriminating... I would also be open to an independent committee.

(06-19-2017 02:06 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:51 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

Yeah, right, because the courts are non-partisan.

Less so than the legislative or executive branches, at least they might be able to do it without it being struck down for racially discriminating... I would also be open to an independent committee.

With legislators you can throw them out when you dislike their gerrymandering.

With Judges that is impossible.

I'm kind of surprised by some comments. We all know the the House has been getting to the extremes on both sides. This could be a way of reducing that stress. It's meant to be that the electorate selects their politicians. Politicians shouldn't be selecting their electorate. Common sense to me but that seems to be a commodity in short supply now a days.

(06-19-2017 02:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:06 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:51 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

Yeah, right, because the courts are non-partisan.

Less so than the legislative or executive branches, at least they might be able to do it without it being struck down for racially discriminating... I would also be open to an independent committee.

With legislators you can throw them out when you dislike their gerrymandering.

With Judges that is impossible.

The problem is they draw the districts so that you can't vote them out but ok what is your suggestion to fix the problem?

(06-19-2017 02:19 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:06 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:51 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Gerrymandering is a problem for both republicans and democrats it just depends on what state you live in. I think districts should be drawn by the courts not by the legislative branch. Keep it at the state level if you like but representatives drawing their own districts has proven to be corrupt on both sides of the isle.

Yeah, right, because the courts are non-partisan.

Less so than the legislative or executive branches, at least they might be able to do it without it being struck down for racially discriminating... I would also be open to an independent committee.

With legislators you can throw them out when you dislike their gerrymandering.

With Judges that is impossible.

The problem is they draw the districts so that you can't vote them out but ok what is your suggestion to fix the problem?

My lack of an answer doesn't serve to validate your suggestion.

Federal courts drawing state lines is a bad idea no matter how you cut it.

(06-19-2017 02:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:19 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:06 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yeah, right, because the courts are non-partisan.

Less so than the legislative or executive branches, at least they might be able to do it without it being struck down for racially discriminating... I would also be open to an independent committee.

With legislators you can throw them out when you dislike their gerrymandering.

With Judges that is impossible.

The problem is they draw the districts so that you can't vote them out but ok what is your suggestion to fix the problem?

My lack of an answer doesn't serve to validate your suggestion.

Federal courts drawing state lines is a bad idea no matter how you cut it.

I never said it did, I just know there is a problem and threw out a couple of ideas off the top of my head. If you don't have any ideas on how to fix the problem that's fine. Could you explain why you think US district courts drawing the lines is worse than congressional members drawing their own lines?

Not trying to be confrontational I'm genuinely curious. I don't claim to have a perfect solution so I'm open to other ideas.

(06-19-2017 03:11 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:19 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:06 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  Less so than the legislative or executive branches, at least they might be able to do it without it being struck down for racially discriminating... I would also be open to an independent committee.

With legislators you can throw them out when you dislike their gerrymandering.

With Judges that is impossible.

The problem is they draw the districts so that you can't vote them out but ok what is your suggestion to fix the problem?

My lack of an answer doesn't serve to validate your suggestion.

Federal courts drawing state lines is a bad idea no matter how you cut it.

I never said it did, I just know there is a problem and threw out a couple of ideas off the top of my head. If you don't have any ideas on how to fix the problem that's fine. Could you explain why you think US district courts drawing the lines is worse than congressional members drawing their own lines?

Not trying to be confrontational I'm genuinely curious. I don't claim to have a perfect solution so I'm open to other ideas.

Presidents pick the Judges who pick the lines.

Presidents pick district judges without any other input.

It just serves to politicize the judiciary to an even more extreme point which is bad for everybody.

Our Senate rep was Blanche Lincoln until the Republicans redrew the lines to make Mark Pryor our Senate rep until he lost to Tom Cotton. Little Rock, Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Pine Bluff are all Democrat heavy voters. There are a lot of voters that vote Democrats who are different races. Sometimes we feel that the Republican buffoons in the house and Senate really do not work for all of us who did not vote for them.

(06-19-2017 03:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Our Senate rep was Blanche Lincoln until the Republicans redrew the lines to make Mark Pryor our Senate rep until he lost to Tom Cotton. Little Rock, Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Pine Bluff are all Democrat heavy voters. There are a lot of voters that vote Democrats who are different races. Sometimes we feel that the Republican buffoons in the house and Senate really do not work for all of us who did not vote for them.

So you know how a bunch of us felt the past 8 years with the buffoon y'all put in the White House.

(06-19-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Our Senate rep was Blanche Lincoln until the Republicans redrew the lines to make Mark Pryor our Senate rep until he lost to Tom Cotton. Little Rock, Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Pine Bluff are all Democrat heavy voters. There are a lot of voters that vote Democrats who are different races. Sometimes we feel that the Republican buffoons in the house and Senate really do not work for all of us who did not vote for them.

So you know how a bunch of us felt the past 8 years with the buffoon y'all put in the White House.

We were put in this position for the past 8 years because of the Republicans of Arkansas did to us. The same thing for the past 30 years in Georgia and other states that are Republican held. Both sides have done this to their people for a very long time. The problem is we should vote on the person with Merit and not with the letter in front of their name like D, R or I.

(06-19-2017 02:19 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm kind of surprised by some comments. We all know the the House has been getting to the extremes on both sides. This could be a way of reducing that stress. It's meant to be that the electorate selects their politicians. Politicians shouldn't be selecting their electorate. Common sense to me but that seems to be a commodity in short supply now a days.

Definitely lacking on the left.

Every single redistricting would go at least to the appeals courts if not the Supreme Court. It would overwhelm the courts and be entirely dependent on what unelected judges happened to think.

The LAST place district lines should be drawn is by the courts.