Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How do you propose to dray the boundaries of Congressional districts if not by vote of the state legislature?
It really should be as non-partisan as possible. The districts should aim to be as compact as possible too.
I think a combination of Iowa's and California's systems would work best, having strict guidelines as to how districts could be drawn and also having a non-partisan independent commission draw the maps without political data taken into account.
How does anything you posted have anything to do with voters being "capable of deciding" anything? It doesn't. The issue being debated is whether or not legislators are given a constitutional right to draw district lines.
You really can't read can you? Fuck off dummy.
Okay fine, let's put it this way....if the law wasn't made by ballot measure and was instead voted in through the legislature....the lawsuit would still apply and could still be taken to the Supreme Court.
The issue isn't with voters deciding anything, the article just put it in for effect. The issue....said yet again....is whether or not the legislatures have constitutional rights to draw district maps.
Exactly. Any state with a citizens redistricting committee, whether through people's initiative or legislative vote, could be rendered invalid by a SCOTUS ruling.
Not necessarily, if the legislature sets up the commission, wouldn't that be in accordance with their powers per the Constitution? That's not the case in AZ.
That would be an entirely different law similar to Washington State's.
How do you propose to dray the boundaries of Congressional districts if not by vote of the state legislature?
It really should be as non-partisan as possible. The districts should aim to be as compact as possible too.
I think a combination of Iowa's and California's systems would work best, having strict guidelines as to how districts could be drawn and also having a non-partisan independent commission draw the maps without political data taken into account.
There's no such thing as a non-partisan independent commission. All the people on it would either be registered Democrats or registered Republicans. In the end, the state legislature would have to vote on whatever method was chosen. That's in the Constitution.
You really can't read can you? Fuck off dummy.
Okay fine, let's put it this way....if the law wasn't made by ballot measure and was instead voted in through the legislature....the lawsuit would still apply and could still be taken to the Supreme Court.
The issue isn't with voters deciding anything, the article just put it in for effect. The issue....said yet again....is whether or not the legislatures have constitutional rights to draw district maps.
Exactly. Any state with a citizens redistricting committee, whether through people's initiative or legislative vote, could be rendered invalid by a SCOTUS ruling.
Not necessarily, if the legislature sets up the commission, wouldn't that be in accordance with their powers per the Constitution? That's not the case in AZ.
That would be an entirely different law similar to Washington State's.
So I guess your answer would be..................Yes?
Okay fine, let's put it this way....if the law wasn't made by ballot measure and was instead voted in through the legislature....the lawsuit would still apply and could still be taken to the Supreme Court.
The issue isn't with voters deciding anything, the article just put it in for effect. The issue....said yet again....is whether or not the legislatures have constitutional rights to draw district maps.
Exactly. Any state with a citizens redistricting committee, whether through people's initiative or legislative vote, could be rendered invalid by a SCOTUS ruling.
Not necessarily, if the legislature sets up the commission, wouldn't that be in accordance with their powers per the Constitution? That's not the case in AZ.
That would be an entirely different law similar to Washington State's.
So I guess your answer would be..................Yes?
No, it wouldn't be "independent" it'd be a bipartisan commission. There are a number of those throughout the country, they produce maps not much different from ones produce from the legislature, maybe with a small power check in the commission's chair vote.
Exactly. Any state with a citizens redistricting committee, whether through people's initiative or legislative vote, could be rendered invalid by a SCOTUS ruling.
Not necessarily, if the legislature sets up the commission, wouldn't that be in accordance with their powers per the Constitution? That's not the case in AZ.
That would be an entirely different law similar to Washington State's.
So I guess your answer would be..................Yes?
No, it wouldn't be "independent" it'd be a bipartisan commission. There are a number of those throughout the country, they produce maps not much different from ones produce from the legislature, maybe with a small power check in the commission's chair vote.
Independent? There's no such animal in politics, everyone has a dog in the fight. You could pick the commissioners names from the phone book and not get "independent".
The most notorious gerrymandered district in the United States is North Carolina 12 created by democrats in the 90's. The second most notorious gerrymandered district in the United States is Pa. 12 created by democrats to make sure the most crooked congressman, Jack Murtha would keep raking in the graft.
News from The Associated Press
And it sounds like, thanks to the conservative judges on the bench, they will get it.
Add this to the list of:
-fear mongering
-voter suppression
-obstruction
good pointBig surprise, The GOP needs to choose their voters instead of letting the voters choose them....
News from The Associated Press
And it sounds like, thanks to the conservative judges on the bench, they will get it.
Add this to the list of:
-fear mongering
-voter suppression
-obstruction
Aside from your made up democrat nonsense, I'm against gerrymandering too. I am less optimistic that it can be avoided.
I'm also not as dumb as some who think Democrats never do it, but Republicans do. What a joke.
News from The Associated Press
And it sounds like, thanks to the conservative judges on the bench, they will get it.
Add this to the list of:
-fear mongering
-voter suppression
-obstruction
Aside from your made up democrat nonsense, I'm against gerrymandering too. I am less optimistic that it can be avoided.
I'm also not as dumb as some who think Democrats never do it, but Republicans do. What a joke.
They both do and have done it, but that does not make it right for either party. The GOP wants MORE!
News from The Associated Press
And it sounds like, thanks to the conservative judges on the bench, they will get it.
Add this to the list of:
-fear mongering
-voter suppression
-obstruction
Aside from your made up democrat nonsense, I'm against gerrymandering too. I am less optimistic that it can be avoided.
I'm also not as dumb as some who think Democrats never do it, but Republicans do. What a joke.
They both do and have done it, but that does not make it right for either party. The GOP wants MORE!
Yeah, again... If you were unbiased, you would say the politicians want more... which they do.
By trying to single out the GOP, you make the people on the right, not really care what you think. Thus the problem will continue, and never be solved.
Good thing the Democrats never gerrymander their districts.......
America s most gerrymandered congressional districts - The Washington Post
1. Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans.
Good thing the Democrats never gerrymander their districts.......
America s most gerrymandered congressional districts - The Washington Post
1. Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans.
the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably.
News from The Associated Press
And it sounds like, thanks to the conservative judges on the bench, they will get it.
Add this to the list of:
-fear mongering
-voter suppression
-obstruction
Aside from your made up democrat nonsense, I'm against gerrymandering too. I am less optimistic that it can be avoided.
I'm also not as dumb as some who think Democrats never do it, but Republicans do. What a joke.
They both do and have done it, but that does not make it right for either party. The GOP wants MORE!
Yeah, again... If you were unbiased, you would say the politicians want more... which they do.
By trying to single out the GOP, you make the people on the right, not really care what you think. Thus the problem will continue, and never be solved.
Why is it outside of Arizona and Indiana, only blue states have commissions to draw districts? Why is it virtually every single deep south state (and also most western red states) gives the power solely to the legislature?
There is movement on the left to end gerrymandering, on the right there is movement to keep it under the radar and score more mapping victories with redistricting.
The two largest blue states, New York and California both have commissions drawing the maps. The Republicans have a fricking national party MEMO ("REDMAP") outlining plans to win state legislatures and draw bias maps in their favor.
News from The Associated Press
And it sounds like, thanks to the conservative judges on the bench, they will get it.
Add this to the list of:
-fear mongering
-voter suppression
-obstruction
Aside from your made up democrat nonsense, I'm against gerrymandering too. I am less optimistic that it can be avoided.
I'm also not as dumb as some who think Democrats never do it, but Republicans do. What a joke.
They both do and have done it, but that does not make it right for either party. The GOP wants MORE!
Yeah, again... If you were unbiased, you would say the politicians want more... which they do.
By trying to single out the GOP, you make the people on the right, not really care what you think. Thus the problem will continue, and never be solved.
Why is it outside of Arizona and Indiana, only blue states have commissions to draw districts? Why is it virtually every single deep south state (and also most western red states) gives the power solely to the legislature?
There is movement on the left to end gerrymandering, on the right there is movement to keep it under the radar and score more mapping victories with redistricting.
The two largest blue states, New York and California both have commissions drawing the maps. The Republicans have a fricking national party MEMO ("REDMAP") outlining plans to win state legislatures and draw bias maps in their favor.
And ironically The Constitutions requirement to insure states a republican form of government should mandate that these districts be drawn by unbiased commissions. How can you get true representatives when you dont have unbiased districts?...Gerrymandering is unconstitutional ...only the retards on the Supreme Court are just partisan hacks and probably will ignore the true intent.
