I hope the ACLU spanks Ohio as soundly as it did Pennsylvania.
It would be useful to state explicitly that this is a Federal court suit, not in state court. The Pennsylvania state constitution laudably contained language limiting partisan gerrymandering, in the judgment of the stateâs own Supreme Court, which is why that suit succeeded. The Federal courts, right up to SCOTUS, saw no Federal law issue that would justify overruling the state court. (Always good losers, state Republicans have tried to impeach the entire state Supreme Court, though that doesnât appear to go going anywhere).
Apparently, Ohioâs state constitution is less protective of democracy, or the elected state supreme court judges are less interested (being, by now, entirely Republicans) in doing anything to protect equal voting rights, since the ACLU did not sue in state court. However, Ohio voters are interested in fairness, apparently, having passed an initiative to reform their district-drawing process. So thereâs hopeâŚ
The ACLU is working hard to prevent a GOP autocracy.
If you arenât a member already, join and donate.
Itâs important to be relentless on this issue. Conservatives clearly wonât give up their attacks on voting rights.
Many pundits lauded Ohioâs so-called âreformâ district mapping initiative recently voted into law. But the ACLU is correct in pointing out the loopholes in the initiative are substantial. With them, the current gerrymandered map can remain largely unchanged at least through the 2026 midterms. The Democrats got gamed.
Donât ever forget who did this nationwide in an attempt to control elections for the foreseeable future.
Karl Rove.
The Republicans know they cannot win elections unless they cheat!
Meanwhile, neoliberal Democrats canât win elections because they purge and cheat progressives out of primary wins.
Time for a progressive party that will win, especially since 43% of registered voters are now independents. So they can beat both corporate parties in a three-way race.
I wish I had a $zillion o support this.
Democracy is a difficult and frustrating form of governance (the most unsatisfactory except for all known alternative) because success in a democratic polity means that absolutely no one gets their way, entirely.
In the US, this reality is amplified by winner-takes-all voting systems, which are deficient in many ways, but not likely to go away soon.
Under these circumstances, all political parties are in fact sub-coalitions: not only does each party have to accept not always getting their way nationally, each coalition element within parties routinely has to accept policies, platforms, or positions that deviate from its own views. Neo-liberals in the Democratic party accept the importance of unions in the coalition, who wonât accept neo-liberal economic policy; cultural progressives have to accept the neo-liberalsâ discomfort with government intervention in some areas, and so forth. And the most dedicated and serious adherents of each position are constantly tempted to say that the other members of their own coalition âpurge and cheatâ (every heard the expression RINO? âswampâ?). And in so doing, under the relentless logic of 2-party winner-take-all election rules, they risk helping the other coalition when they do so.
The idea that there is a pure progressive electorate out there that is held back by corporate neo-liberals is, in my humble judgment, a fantasy. Corporate power is real (and itâs power, so canât be ignored), political bosses will shave and manipulate when they can, but there are also are many people who for (whatever reason) find neo-liberal â or union-based â or cultural libertarian/fiscal restraint - or you name your party faction â policy persuasive. Moreover, those 43% of independents are not a large pool of frustrated progressives: they cover a wide spectrum, from frustrated racists and reactionaries on the right to full-on progressives on the left. In consequence, it seems to me that the chance of a âprogressive partyâ emerging under winner-take-all voting is just as likely as that of a âpureâ conservative" party that will fully implement American reactionariesâ ideas. We live in a fragmented political landscape with many intersecting interests, and in the long run, thatâs probably a good thing. However, itâs also why voter suppression is so dangerousâŚbecause it is the most likely pathway to purist political dominance (left or right, though right now the threat is largely from the right).
Should progressives campaign hard for their ideas, standard-bearers, and positions? Yes, of course. Should they be fairly represented in party machinery and have an equal opportunity to shape policy? Yes, of course. But should they whine about âpurge and cheatâ when things arenât perfect? Well, itâs their right, just as much as whining is the prerogative of the RINO-spewing right fringe, but the outcome is more likely to harm than help their agenda. Iâm not saying that anyone is immune from criticism, nor defending visible corruption. Iâm just saying that in the system we live in, prudence has a place. Think about likely consequences of your strategy before leaping into the fray⌠then youâre a free man and will do whatâs your right.
You talk like the southern white racists in the 1960âs when they said that we have to move slowly with integration. Then President Johnson moved quickly with the National Guard.
Revolutions come all at once. Status quo Luddites get out of the way!