While anti-partisan gerrymandering legislation languishes in a Senate gridlocked by Republicans and the filibuster, both parties on the state level are actively mapping out how best to craft congressional districts to give them easy wins.
So are we or aren’t we being decimated in re-districting?
Democrats Are Doing Weirdly Well in Redistricting (nymag.com)
This isn’t the only article I’ve seen on this topic either.
Opinion | There has been a redistricting turnaround - The Washington Post
Redistricting is Going Surprisingly Well for Democrats (dataforprogress.org)
Are we in a ‘cry wolf’ position here?
My head is spinning.
Let’s pass the Legislation.
That would certainly help, but there’s no benefit to Congress to pass it. None. They’re never going to do anything that would potentially affect their paychecks (and their donors).
I don’t know how we get this fixed when Congress has no interest or passion for getting it done (or it already would’ve been done, let’s be honest).
ETA: not to mention, it seems that how elections are run are up to the States, so I would bet good money that, if and when the legislation is passed, there’s a class action from the Red States to challenge this in the Federal court system. That ends in SCOTUS. We already know where they stand on this.
Government of some people by some people, for some people…
FiNaLLy, a CongrEsS thaT wiLL represeNt the wiLL of the silent MaJority.
Some people, not those people. Government of rich white people by rich white people for rich white people.
Here was the original discussion of voting in America, back in the day of the development of the Constitution:
But how would Americans consent to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:
The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed… . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] …may be overruled by a majority without property…
Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.
And this is why the Federal take-over of voting rights, as was defined in subsequent amendments to the Constitution, is being challenged now. The originalists on the Court will point to this as their justification to removing the enfranchisement of a good portion of the country. The phrase about Congress making such regulations will be ignored by SCOTUS, just as they did with VRA.
As the divinely revealed Citizens United intended./s
And with minimal to no contact with voters in the district, must preserve a Representative’s time to chase after dollars from local businesses.
He who writes the checks gets the most representation. To bad voting can’t be limited to those with the sizable checks.
Seems to me (NAL) that the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments settled this business.
And here the ugly head of “why can’t all American who eligible to vote be able to vote no matter which state they live in” argument is pitted against state’s right to control voting in their state.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations[, except as to the Places of chusing Senators*].
*Superseded by 17th Amendment.
I can’t say the “Democrats are doing fine in Redistricting” voices help me sleep. At all. The proof will be in the pudding as the mid-terms are known to favor the party out of power* in any case.
These voices point out that we should have larger majorities than the razor thin ones we have now. Also, non-gerrymandered maps keep more right wingnuts out of Congress and we could get more things done.
Most importantly, I think that non-gerrymandered maps give people a reason to vote and voting gives Democrats better odds of winning state races (governor, expanding the majority in the Senate, etc.) when they see that their vote matters.
Edited to fix typo on *
Dooomm!!! DOOOOMMMMM!!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOMmmME!111!!!
Legal doomsplaining is so tedious. Not to mention incoherent. You may as well be pontificating that SOTUS is going to round us all up and make us swear fealty to Matt Gaetz upon penalty of summary execution.
One would think, but apparently not.
Oh, for Heaven’s sake… I am pointing out that the literature is saying precisely the opposite.
And has SCOTUS or has it not removed many of the protections that the VRA afforded?
If you can’t participate in a conversation about something this important without the DOOMSPLAINING comment, please do me the favor of ignoring me. You’re not helping (and I say this, totally enjoying your more rational commentary). This nonsense of yours is getting tedious.
One party would trample the Constitution and reverse election results. One party is attempting to gerrymander all 50 states. One party does not believe in public health measures. One party wants to reverse Roe v. Wade (and are likely to do so, based on three Supreme Court appointees.) Who are YOU going to vote for?