New PA Maps In Effect (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 11:42:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  New PA Maps In Effect (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: New PA Maps In Effect  (Read 88386 times)
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,487
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« on: March 05, 2018, 11:42:51 PM »

Aren't at Large State Congressional delegations unconstitutional?

They are not and were actually pretty common prior to the 60s. However they are now prohibited by a 1964 federal law.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,487
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2018, 06:44:21 AM »

The argument the plaintiffs in the Maryland case are making is absurd. I don't have a problem with a Democratic gerrymander being thrown out if the precedent allows for Republican ones to be trashed as well, but that is a really really terrible line of argument to base a case on. Interestingly it's also made even weaker by that MD-06 was close in 2014.

(FYI it's basically that the current map made MD-06 no longer a Republican district and thus it violated the First Amendment rights of Republicans in the district as its now harder for them to elect a representative of their party.)
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,487
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2018, 07:53:48 PM »

The actual "votes" of the justices will never be known. "No noted dissent" is pretty common when a case is denied to be heard. One thing that was really pushed in my Constitutional Law class in college is that the Court refusing to hear a case does not mean they are endorsing the lower court's decision. Also Alito asking for the opinion of the full Court does not mean that he supported it necessarily (remember he rejected the previous appeal.)

But I'd be willing to wager that the decision likely was unanimous to not hear it, the only likely dissenter I can see is Thomas, but even he might've declined to hear if he was sure it wouldn't change anything which was kind of obvious.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.