But it’s also bound to the quality of the state constitution. Some of those have proven to be pretty flimsy when it comes to actually protecting individual rights. They were often written with sloppy language and without good recourse for public grievances when the executive or legislative branches neglect their duties to the citizens and residents.
15 Likes
Given their past ruling, how could the U.S. Supreme Court even take the case?
8 Likes
The good news is liberals have a solid majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court, so this decision is likely to be upheld.
15 Likes
That has to leave an odd vibe for the daughter. Imagine being estranged from your father, and then having the last word on him after his death.
Interesting family dynamics, I would think.
12 Likes
Don’t worry our corrupt and racist christian conservative supreme court is going to fix that for their beloved Republican party. Roberts and his fellow christian conservatives will find a way to take up the case and wrest it from the North Carolina system. Racism is over and race does not exist since President Obama was elected.
2 Likes
Moscow Mitch McConnell, if you please…
Give dishonor its due…
24 Likes
They can’t rest on their Garland, that’s for sure…
7 Likes
In some circumstances, “hoosegow” — Hoosegow Mitch — is acceptable ; - )
1 Like
Republicans say they’re not going to appeal.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article234668747.html
9 Likes
Good news. This is NOT the NC state Supreme Court (which would limit Repub appeals) but merely “three superior court judges in Wake County,” as WaPo says.
However, WaPo also says “There is a good chance Tuesday’s ruling will stand, given that Democrats control North Carolina’s Supreme Court.”
Very similar to the PA Supreme Court ordering a new congressional map recently (but on a temporary basis).
NC Repubs are going batshit crazy right now, I am sure (just like they did in gerrymandered PA).
12 Likes
Вы будете удивлены тем, что мы можем сделать.
The state’s legislative leaders argued during this trial over the state-level maps that the state courts should follow that federal ruling. But after the loss Tuesday, Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said he wouldn’t appeal and would instead start re-drawing new maps.
“We disagree with the court’s ruling as it contradicts the Constitution and binding legal precedent, but we intend to respect the court’s decision and finally put this divisive battle behind us,” Berger said in a statement. “Nearly a decade of relentless litigation has strained the legitimacy of this state’s institutions, and the relationship between its leaders, to the breaking point. It’s time to move on.”
Link above.
8 Likes
I’m guessing Ohio is filled with sloppy language.
We voted for a more “independent” gerrymander. I can’t wait to see how the gop guts it. 
1 Like
It’s worth noting here that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reached a similar conclusion in 2018, based on the Pennsylvania State Constitution. And that decision was NOT disturbed by the recent U.S. Supreme Court hands-off-gerrymandering decision:
“Last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a similar ruling, tossing the state’s U.S. congressional map and commissioning an independent expert to redraw the lines. The new map was credited with helping Democrats split the state’s 18 congressional seats in 2018 after years of Republican dominance.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2019-09-03/north-carolina-court-strikes-down-state-legislative-map-as-unconstitutional-gerrymander
7 Likes
Massive incompetence, and not to mention massive costs to the American tax payer plus added shitty optics vis-a-vis the emolument’s clause…
3 Likes
Dear GOPers:
This was the “easy way.” If you’d like to face the “hard way”, please proceed.
Sincerely,
We Dare You
2 Likes
Democracy which relies on the happenstance of an estranged relative of a now-dead mastermind of the racist conspiracy to disenfranchise voters is really hanging on a very tenuous thread.
This series of coincidences will not likely be duplicated in other states. There, the SCOTUS has said unless the states’ Constitution has a “right to vote” clause that even casually clandestine conspiracies to disenfranchise voters are “just politics” and fair game.
In short, no, this does not in any way make John Roberts’ opinion right, nor free from damaging consequences. The Roberts Court has put its marker in the history books as a major proponent of gerrymanders and opponent of any proactive measures to stop gerrymanders (see Civil Rights Act Section 5 dismantling). History will not look kindly on Roberts’ reign, and that also means the next couple of decades are going to be really bad ones for fans of democracy.
If you care about democracy, you cannot rest your hopes on an estranged relative exposing movie-plot-like schemes to win power. Not all criminals are idiots. Not all politicians are stupid. If you care, fight to enshrine voting rights in the US Constitution. That is the only way this can be guaranteed across the country and not leave Americans to the mercy of the particular fiefdom of the state in which they reside.
10 Likes
Republicans: all for “state’s rights” until they get a ruling in their favor from a Federal court. Then it’s, “What? States have Constitutions too? Who cares about those?”
6 Likes
The decision is from Wake County Superior Court, in case anyone was wondering.
Note to reporters: states have more than one level of courts. It is helpful to identify which “state court” issued the judgment/opinion and whether it is subject to appeal. And I’m not complaining about Tierney; a whole bunch of articles from different sources only identified it as “a state court” in NC.
8 Likes
Nonetheless, state to state there is no “precedent.” Each state decision must be made by the individual state based on the state’s constitution and legislation. 
1 Like