Law [Partisan Gerrymandering News] Florida appeals court reverses ruling on DeSantis’s congressional maps

We have already discussed how the voters in a deep-blue state like California and a deep-red state like Arizona was able to do just that earlier in this neatly indexed thread. Have you caught up with that yet?

Reality is most voters are against gerrymandering, regardless their political leanings. They simply need to realize the solution they're looking for is right in front of them all this time, with the blueprints provided by the citizens who took that brave stance and proved it works.

Yes, I get that, but what if the politicians in said state never allow something like that commission to come into existence or let it get to a ballot to let the citizens vote on it?

Each state has different criteria for a proposal to end up on a ballot. Some are easier than others for an interfering legislation to block.
 
Perhaps the SCOTUS losing all credibility is what this country ultimately needs

What a horrific ruling
 
For all the Republican and Democratic drones currently festering the thread: what do you have against a Citizens Redistrict Commission that takes away redistricting power away from the politicians and returning it to the people?

And why are you following your pandering Senators' footsteps in making pointless noises instead of putting a working system in your gerrymandered state?


A 14-member independent commission – no elected officials allowed - draws the congressional district lines in California.

The method was established by a voter referendum in 2010, with 61 percent of California’s voters approving what was dubbed the “Voters First Act for Congress.”

"The representatives don't choose their voters anymore," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, an expert on politics and elections, and a senior fellow at the USC Price School of Public Policy.

Jeffe's view is shared by Helen Hutchinson, president of the League of Women Voters of California.

Before reform, the elected leaders who worked redistricting maps were "just trying to protect people who were incumbents," she said. "While it was the Democrats who were doing the drawing, they were probably just as good at protecting the Republican incumbents as they were Democrats."

If not elected, how is the commission chosen?

The All About Redistricting website, an encyclopedia of sorts on the topic by Loyola of California law professor Justin Levitt, outlines the selection process this way:

  1. A panel of three state auditors creates a pool of 60 potential commission members - 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 people who are neither Democrat nor Republican.
  2. The four legislative leaders – two Democrats and two Republicans – may then each cut two people from the pool.
  3. From the remaining 52 to 60 candidates, three commission members are randomly chosen from the group of Democrats, three are randomly chosen from the group of Republicans and two from the group of independents.
  4. The first eight members chosen for the commission then add six others from the field – two Republicans, two Democrats and two from neither party - to reflect the diversity of the state.
Who cannot serve on the commission?

California’s commission takes the no-politician business seriously. It bars current politicians, former politicians and pretty much anyone who even thinks about becoming a politician.

Here are some of the key restrictions:

  • No elected officials.
  • No one who has changed party affiliation in the last five years.
  • No one who within 10 years has been a candidate for a federal or state office, or a member of a party's central committee.
  • No one with an immediate family member who in the last 10 years has been a candidate for federal or state office, or a member of a party's central committee.
  • No officer, employee or paid consultant to a federal or state party candidate.

Approval of California’s congressional maps requires at least three Democrat votes, three Republican votes and three votes from people who are not affiliated with either party.

The map drawn in 2011 was approved by the commission in a 12-2 vote.

In the event of a stalemate, the California Supreme Court selects a group to draw the map.

California voters do have a say if they don’t like the map the commission creates. The map can be challenged through a referendum.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...-federal-courts.3630493/page-5#post-134474751
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the SCOTUS losing all credibility is what this country ultimately needs

What a horrific ruling
Take a step back from the ledge. Breathe. Everything is going to be okay.
 
No.

People should not want this and i guarantee if benefits 'the other side' they would not.

XoSDMeGvX-Qf8U55Cu_u4enwG0aEauVgHTLX2MpMRk8.jpg
Yeah but how do red guys steal it when they're the minority statewide?
 
Yes, I get that, but what if the politicians in said state never allow something like that commission to come into existence or let it get to a ballot to let the citizens vote on it?

Each state has different criteria for a proposal to end up on a ballot. Some are easier than others for an interfering legislation to block.

You don't think the officials of the California Democratic Party or the Arizona Republican Party didn't fought tooth and nails against the idea of an Independent Redistricting Commission when the idea was brought up in those states?

In the end, the voters have the final say, and no pandering politicians would dare say No to something that their own electorate resoundingly says Yes.

If California and Arizona could do it, you have no excuses, period!

I think the real question you should be asking is "why do voters in most states - even the ones with very low signatures requirement to put issues on the ballot - still doesn't even know about independent redistricting commissions yet".

It's pointless to ask "what if it gets blocked", if the people in your state still doesn't know such a thing can exists, much less campaigning for it.

Do what we did, start collecting signatures or whatever it takes to put a proposition on the ballot according to your state laws, then you'll have a starting point to go from there.

@panamaican is at partially correct in this aspect, and that widespread misconception that only politicians can draw electoral maps will remains so if the voters in each state keep listening to their pandering politicians who insists on making it a federal partisan issue, rather than realizing that it is an electoral issue at the State level that must be fixed by their own hands.

Because most people aren't paying attention to it. And for the ones who are paying attention, if they're not in power then they have no ability to change it. And the ones who are in power, they have no incentive to change it.

Which is why it's really only the fed who can force any change on this subject.

I disagree with him on the last sentence though, because our voters have already proven that we can force the change in our own state over a decade ago without crying to the Supreme Court for help.

Slowly but surely, other States will follow too, because it is the only solution. You can mark my word on that.
 
Last edited:
History is going to be quite unkind to the Roberts court.
 
Supreme Court ruling on gerrymandering doesn’t change Michigan’s independent redistricting commission plan

vnp_circulator_photo_1.jpg

Before 2018, the Michigan State Legislature was responsible for drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The last maps were created in 2011, when Republicans controlled the both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office.

Proposal 2 transferred the power to draw legislative districts to a 13-member commission comprised of four Democrats, four Republicans and five independents. The next political maps will be drawn after the 2020 census and take effect in 2022 elections.

The effort was spearheaded by to Voters Not Politicians, a grassroots, nonpartisan organization. Voters Not Politicians Executive Director Nancy Wang said the independent commission will end gerrymandering in Michigan, but other states are less fortunate.

Legislatures won’t act to end gerrymandering because they benefit from it, she said.

“You can’t simply say to voters, ‘well if you don’t like what your politicians are doing you should just vote them out,' because (politicians) are making it increasingly hard to do that by counting certain votes a lot less than others depending on what party you support,” she said.

Wang said the Supreme Court decision has no affect on the independent commission.

Benson said the Michigan commission will “engage all of our citizens in a transparent process that leads to fair districts for all.”

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said gerrymandering undermines the right to open and free elections.

“This is why passage of Proposal 2 was so crucial to ensure Michigan has fair maps and fair representation,” she said in a statement. "As governor, I will continue to do my job to ensure that voters can pick their elected officials, not the other way around.”

U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, said the Supreme Court rightly decided to keep itself out of the business of determining legislative boundaries.

"These decisions should be made by legislators who are accountable to the people they represent.”

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, disagreed, saying politicians “shouldn’t be able to pick their own voters.” Peters said the state legislature drew “some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country," making it difficult for voters to elect politicians who would reform the system.

U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Flint, said he is grateful that Michigan voters adopted the ballot initiative in 2018.

“Partisan gerrymandering diminishes the voices of voters and weakens our democracy,” he said. “The U.S. Constitution affords equal protection under the law to all Americans, yet the continuation of partisan gerrymandering will violate these rights. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

https://www.mlive.com/public-intere...-michigans-redistricting-commission-plan.html
 
Last edited:
Yeah but how do red guys steal it when they're the minority statewide?
not sure what you are asking.

I think this addresses the question?

XoSDMeGvX-Qf8U55Cu_u4enwG0aEauVgHTLX2MpMRk8.jpg


You have Red as the minority State wide but you draw districts to concentrate the blue votes into districts you know they overwhelm and suck as many blue votes into that district as possible. so you see 2 Blue districts win in the 3rd graphic by overwhelming massive numbers (only one red vote) and then concentrate the red votes into 3 districts you can then win.
 
The question is who sets the policy to draw the districts? If the blue bozos are 60% and they let themselves get cucked like that, well... LOL!!
Oh. the party in power does when they have control and that control is set to last thru the next election cycle.

So if a party gains power now with thin control and its redistricting time, they look at the map and how they won their thin majority and change the districts so that even if in the next election they get less votes and even the minority, they will still maintain the most seats. That way they can prevent the redrawing again thru the next cycle other than by them, and if they can skew it more, they will.

So it is basically a game of whoever is unethical enough to skew it first has a good chance to hold on to it thru numerous elections cycles. the majority is getting cucked but they really cannot do anything about it.

And while I don't want this to be a partisan thing it has been almost exclusively Republicans doing it and targeting ethnic districts and native groups.
 
Yeah but how do red guys steal it when they're the minority statewide?

The gerrymandering like this typically goes on in partisan strongholds where they already have power so they can maintain it indefinitely.

Also, until the Blue Wave last year many state governments even in more left leaning states were controlled by Republican governors and senates so they did what they could while they could.
 
The gerrymandering like this typically goes on in partisan strongholds where they already have power so they can maintain it indefinitely.

Also, until the Blue Wave last year many state governments even in more left leaning states were controlled by Republican governors and senates so they did what they could while they could.
My point was the graphic he posted wasn't really telling the story.
 
Man this is fucked, i was hoping the court would protect the voters, guess not.
 
Disputed Redistricting Reform on Ballot in Virginia
The proposed change would turn over the task of drawing state and congressional maps to a 16-member panel evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans
By Matthew Barakat • Published October 11, 2020

ballot-generic.jpg

In Virginia, the gerrymander goes all the way back to the first congressional elections, when then-Gov. Patrick Henry drew up a district to try to keep James Madison, father of the Constitution that Henry opposed, out of the House of Representatives.

Madison, though, campaigned vigorously despite a chronic case of hemorrhoids, and beat James Monroe in a race featuring two future presidents.

Now, Virginia voters are deciding whether to alter their state constitution to support redistricting reform that would take the once-every-10-year task of drawing maps out of legislators' hands, at least to an extent, and give it to a bipartisan panel.

The debate over the referendum comes one year after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows even extreme partisan gerrymandering. But even though the issue has become a hot-button one nationally, the Virginia referendum is the only redistricting question on the ballot in the U.S. this year, said reform advocate Brian Cannon.

Efforts to get the question in front of voters in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oregon and Nevada failed, in part because the coronavirus epidemic stymied the ability to collect petition signatures, said Cannon, who for several years has directed the OneVirginia2021 redistricting reform advocacy group.

In Virginia, the proposal to amend the state constitution to create a bipartisan redistricting panel received support from both parties last year, at a time when Republicans controlled the state legislature but Democrats controlled the governor's mansion.

Under state law, though, a proposal to amend the Constitution must pass the General Assembly for two consecutive years before going to the voters. After Democrats won control of the legislature in last year's elections, a majority of Democrats reversed their support for the referendum. It only narrowly passed the House of Representatives.

Some Democratic leaders in Virginia are now leading a campaign to defeat the referendum.

Republican Del. Jason Miyares of Virginia Beach said the change of heart is purely an effort by Democrats to press their political advantage.

“One side wants to exercise raw political power,” Miyares said of Democrats. “It's the hardest thing in the world to ask politicians to give up political power.”

Marcus Simon, a Democrat who has been working to defeat the referendum, acknowledged the bad optics for Democrats, including himself: He switched from supporting the referendum in 2019 to opposing it in 2020 after Democrats gained power. But he said many Democrats voted for it last year knowing they could examine the legislation more closely in the 2020 session. He said the legislation does not stand up to scrutiny, and doesn't do enough to take politics out of the process.

The proposed change would turn over the task of drawing state and congressional maps, beginning with the 2021 redistricting, to a 16-member panel of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The eight citizens would be chosen by judges from a list prepared by legislators.

The maps developed by the panel would then be sent to the General Assembly for an up-or-down vote with no opportunity to amend them. If the maps were rejected, the Supreme Court of Virginia would draw them.

Simon says the proposal still leaves legislators far too involved in the process of choosing the voters who will be in their districts. He said adding eight citizens to a panel doesn't really do anything to boost citizen involvement when the citizens are selected from a list compiled by legislative leaders.

“I can come up with a list of 16 loyal, do-what-you're-told Democrats, and I'm sure Republicans can do so as well,” Simon said.

Cannon acknowledged that the proposal isn't perfect, particularly in terms of ceding more of a role to legislators than it should. But he said it's the best that could be achieved and a clear improvement over the status quo.

In a state that continues to trend Democratic, Simon acknowledged there's a temptation to campaign against the referendum in blatantly partisan terms, and appeal to Democrats to flex their muscles. But he said the issue is one of good governance, and that's how he and other opponents are making their case.

“Now that Democrats are in charge we want to do it the right way,” he said.

Virginia's Legislative Black Caucus also is opposed to the amendment. Del. Marcia Price, a Democrat from Newport News, argued against the amendment from its inception. She said the proposal does nothing to guarantee representation for persons of color on the redistricting commission.

More broadly, she said she represents an area that has been gerrymandered in the past, and said it generates voter apathy. Her district is one of more than a dozen that was altered under a court order after a yearslong legal battle determined that Republicans packed minority voters into a limited number of districts in the 2011 redistricting, diluting the impact of African American voters more broadly across the state.

“I have campaigned in communities where, what some people call apathy, I have come to recognize as extreme frustration,” she said. “People feel like their vote doesn't count. They say, ‘It’s an automatic Democratic district' or ‘It’s an automatic Republican district.'"

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...ricting-reform-on-ballot-in-virginia/2440320/
 
Last edited:
What democrats should threaten instead of increasing the supreme court is ending gerrymandering It is ridiculous. I used to live in a district that extends from Houston to Austin. It is all bullshit to suppress democratic representation. During the 2018 elections, republican state reps were pushing on the governor to redistrict the state to make sure no one lost their job. If you look at the southern most part of Texas, it is split with 3 ribbon districts to prevent a heavy Latino region from electing a democrat.

congress2.jpg
 
Back
Top