Voters approve gerrymandering the f*ck out of California in favor of Democrats

Nordberg said:
This was a reaction to Trump demanding red states should gerrymander to help him get more Reds in office. Changing districts between censuses is never done. Now it is. Trump breaks any laws, rules, and regulations if he sees an advantage for himself. The Dems cannot watch Trump cheat and ignore it. They have to counter with the same nasty tactics.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's fighting fire with fire.

Congress could fix this but the MAGAt Congress will not.
 
cawacko said:
Redistricting between censuses certainly has happened before Trump, so that's a strange claim.

And it's not just blue states that have passed redistricting reform.

Michigan voted for Trump twice. That still makes it a blue state?
Click to expand...
List some for context please. Were they done to steal elections?

State Requirements
As states first addressed the new federal redistricting requirements following the VRA, there was general agreement between states on four different criteria that redistricting data should meet. First, the data would have to be reported at very low levels of geography to serve as the building blocks for legislative districts. Second, such data should be accessible and easy to use. Third, the data needed to be timely. Fourth, it needed to be disaggregated by race for VRA enforcement. The recognition of these needs resulted in the states banding together and lobbying Congress for the passage of P.L. 94-171, which was passed in 1975 and is the premise under which the Census Bureau provides P.L. 94-171 data today.

State constitutions, statutes, regulations, and policies now often include additional provisions.5 These requirements are subject to and do not supersede federal requirements, however, they often address the requirements placed on the states through decades of federal redistricting litigation or their own state constitutions.

The following list contains many, but not all of the different criteria and how each criterion is defined varies by state...
 
Cypress said:
It's amazing we live in a democratic system where a billionaire can spend $30 million like it's chump change to sway an election.
Click to expand...
People often blame SCOTUS and the United Citizens decision, but the real problem is, as always, Congress.

Consider the Dred Scott decision. Cited as the Court's "great self inflicted wound" by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. How was it changed? By an act of Congress.

www.britannica.com

Dred Scott decision | Definition, History, Summary, Significance, & Facts | Britannica

Dred Scott decision, legal case (1857) in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (7–2) that a slave who had resided in a free state and territory was not thereby entitled to his freedom, that African Americans were not and could never be U.S. citizens, and that the Missouri Compromise (1820) was...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
Dred Scott decision, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”
 
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
List some for context please. Were they done to steal elections?

State Requirements
As states first addressed the new federal redistricting requirements following the VRA, there was general agreement between states on four different criteria that redistricting data should meet. First, the data would have to be reported at very low levels of geography to serve as the building blocks for legislative districts. Second, such data should be accessible and easy to use. Third, the data needed to be timely. Fourth, it needed to be disaggregated by race for VRA enforcement. The recognition of these needs resulted in the states banding together and lobbying Congress for the passage of P.L. 94-171, which was passed in 1975 and is the premise under which the Census Bureau provides P.L. 94-171 data today.

State constitutions, statutes, regulations, and policies now often include additional provisions.5 These requirements are subject to and do not supersede federal requirements, however, they often address the requirements placed on the states through decades of federal redistricting litigation or their own state constitutions.

The following list contains many, but not all of the different criteria and how each criterion is defined varies by state...
Click to expand...

right.

Dem gerrymandering is morally pure.

stfu you retarded idiot.

:tardthoughts:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top