Texas' redistricting/gerrymandering.

[occupied]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

 

[JoeB131]

No worse than Gov. Quinn in IL redrawing maps to benefit Democrats. Hispanics in IL are probably entitled to two districts, but he has to protect the three black districts while making it easier for Democrats to prevail in districts 8 and 11.

 

[Claudette]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

Oh Brother. Like the Dems don't do the same thing??

You need to get out more.

 

[Seawytch]

Some states HAVE got the redistricting right. They are:

CALIFORNIA — For the past ten years, California has been a model of the ill-effects of partisan redistricting. A decade ago, California legislators opted to draw a new map with the primary goal of protecting incumbent officeholders. It worked beyond belief. In the following election, every single incumbent in California’s House, Senate, and congressional delegation won reelection, taking an average 69 percent of the vote. Over the ensuing decade, none of the 120 legislative seats and just one of the state’s 53 congressional seats have switched parties.

This time around, California voters opted to draw the map themselves. In November, they overwhelmingly passed Proposition 20, which turned over congressional redistricting to a citizen commission. Out of 31,000 applicants, eight Californians — including a bookstore owner, an engineer, and an insurance agent — were chosen at random last week to serve. Those eight will soon choose another six citizens to finalize the 14-member commission, which will be evenly split between five Democrats, five Republicans, and four unaffiliated voters. Together, the commission will draw a new map using “strict, nonpartisan rules.” In order to become law, the new map must be supported by at least nine of the 14 members — three Democrats, three Republicans, and three unaffiliated voters.

FLORIDA — Like California, Florida’s current map is an egregious example of gerrymandering. A perpetual swing state, Florida backed President Bush in 2004 with 52 percent of the vote and President Obama in 2008 with 51 percent of the vote. However, thanks in large part to Republican gerrymandering in 2001, the GOP’s 55 percent of the state’s congressional vote in 2010 translated into capturing 75 percent of the state’s congressional seats.

Thankfully, Florida voters passed a redistricting reform initiative in November by a whopping 25 points, despite opposition from the state Republican Party, who stood to lose a new opportunity to gerrymander the state’s districts. Now, despite a Republican governor and large majorities in the state legislature, the GOP is barred from drawing congressional districts that “favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party.”

IOWA — Iowa is a model for fair, nonpartisan redistricting. Rather than allowing legislators to pick which voters they want to represent, Iowa gives the power of redistricting to an independent body, the Legislative Services Agency. The LSA draws a map that uses specific formulas to keep districts as compact and contiguous as possible, while also preserving city and county boundaries. Where current legislators live is a factor that is prohibited from consideration. The map is then voted on in the state legislature, but if it’s rejected, the LSA is then charged with producing another map that the legislature may like less.

There are a few demographic aspects unique to Iowa that make the state’s redistricting restrictions less complicated and more apt to the type of reform it has implemented. For instance, as Stateline.org notes, “Iowa is so overwhelmingly white that it does not have to craft districts that favor minority voters, as required under the federal Voting Rights Act. Plus, Democrats and Republicans are spread pretty evenly throughout the state.” Still, Iowa’s approach is laudable and other states would do well to replicate its system.

ARIZONA — Like Iowa, Arizona employs an independent redistricting commission comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent. Instead of protecting incumbents and ensuring their reelection, the commission is charged with drawing as many competitive districts as possible while still creating compact, contiguous and fair borders. Unlike California, Arizona succeeded at prompting competitiveness in its congressional elections over the past decade. Nearly 40 percent of the state’s districts switched parties once, while a quarter switched parties twice. Rather than disenfranchising voters, Arizona has taken positive steps to ensure that its elections are representative and fair.

Things To Be Thankful For: Redistricting Reform

 

[JoeB131]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

 

[Seawytch]

How about Congressional districting shouldn't be partisan at all, period.

 

[grunt11b]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

Interpretation:
The redistricting did not benefit the Democrats like it usually does, so now they are going to bitch and moan about it.

 

[grunt11b]

I dont think they should be able to gerrymander at all, I think they should be stuck with what they got and if they dont like it they can start to actually represent there constituents instead of the special interest groups.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

How about Congressional districting shouldn't be partisan at all, period.

agreed

 

[occupied]

Bump

 

[Intense]

Published: January 20, 2012
In Texas Redistricting Case, Supreme Court Tosses Judge-Drawn Maps
The Supreme Court on Friday instructed a lower court in Texas to take a fresh look at election maps it had drawn in place of a competing set of maps from the Texas Legislature. The justices said the lower court had not paid enough deference to the Legislature’s choices and had improperly substituted its own values for those of elected officials.

In Texas Redistricting Case, Supreme Court Tosses Judge-Drawn Maps - Document - NYTimes.com

 

[California Girl]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

When you start your post with a blatant lie, why should anyone take the rest of the post as anything more than more lies?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

I think it's a bad idea. You could have all the representatives come from one part of the state. People in an urban area don't typically have the same views/concerns as people in a rural area.

 

[paulitician]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

You live in Texas Dummy? I seriously doubt it. You're way too much of a whiny pussy to live in Texas. My guess is San Fransicko or Assachusetts. So mind your own business Dummy. And have a nice day.

 

[g5000]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

That's affirmative action.

Actually, I'm only half joking.

Districting should be done based on nothing but geography and population statistics. You draw squares, as much as possible, which evenly divide the population, regardless of demographics.

It really isn't that hard to do it that way.

But instead, districts are drawn solely on the race and political orientation of the people inside the lines and so you get these really bizarre shapes. This is done by both parties. They are both equally guilty.


Your idea of at-large represenation is one possible solution. I have a serious problem with it, though. A Representative would be too much like a Senator and would not be beholden to their local district, and that would destroy a chief building block of our Republic.

 

[grunt11b]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

It's funny you never brought this up when the democrats have done this very same thing for the last god only knows how many years. You only get your panties in a bundle when it is done by the GOP? If you are going to be mad about it at least be mad at all of them. I dont think any of them should be able to redistrict, period, if the job they are doing sucks that bad they will get voted out. No redistricting, period.

 

[paulitician]

Fucking dumb Democrat pussies. Always whining about Texas. Why don't they just STFU and worry about San Fransicko and Assachusetts? Let the real Men & Women worry about Texas.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

I don't recall any outrage by you when NC redrew the map and created a salamander district That crossed several counties and connected with a 2 mile wide ribbon 2 cities almost 100 miles apart. Well wait, that was Dems, you don't mind when Dems do it, now do you?

By the way? Courts don't get to draw district maps except in extreme cases, precedent and the law require that if a Court strikes down a State redistricting it send the map BACK to the State Legislature to draw it properly in accordance with established State law.

 

[paulitician]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

I don't recall any outrage by you when NC redrew the map and created a salamander district That crossed several counties and connected with a 2 mile wide ribbon 2 cities almost 100 miles apart. Well wait, that was Dems, you don't mind when Dems do it, now do you?

By the way? Courts don't get to draw district maps except in extreme cases, precedent and the law require that if a Court strikes down a State redistricting it send the map BACK to the State Legislature to draw it properly in accordance with established State law.

Unimportant to them. They're just whiny Democrat pussies. Most Democrat pussies have a weird obsession with bashing Texas. It's not enough like San Fransicko and Assachusetts for them. They should just STFU and mind their own business. No one in Texas gives a shit what a bunch of whiny Democrat pussies think.

 

[occupied]

It seems the SCOTUS unanimously rejected their election map further putting their primary date in question. I asked the question if section5 of the voting rights act is still valid and it seems the supreme court thinks it is.