NC Congressional maps ruled unconstitutional

[Virginiá]

Any chance the new map being in place for the midterms?

Hopefully, it will be.

It is flat out inexcusable that Democrats do not even have 4 seats.

There should be at the very least:

A Mecklenburg Dem District.
A Wake Dem District.
A Guilford/Forsyth Dem District.
A Wake/Durham/Orange Dem District.

(Wake and Mecklenburg have more people than the District average)

This + the AA seat in the Tidewater regions is probably the best the dems could expect from a Rep House+Sen, and a Special Council. An additional swingish seat in Lafayette/Wilmington area would be too generous, and any other Dem seats would begin to be venturing into a pro-dem map.

I'm not sure if we can expect any new map for the 2018 elections. SCOTUS is inevitably going to put a hold on this ruling when Republicans appeal, and SCOTUS will then send it back down after they issue their partisan gerrymandering ruling sometime this year. I don't know when that would be even. If it's this spring, maybe, but if it's this summer, there is no time to redraw the map, especially since the current map's primaries happen before then.

It would be nice if SCOTUS just refused to hold the ruling if they already have decided to rule in favor of limiting partisan gerrymandering. North Carolina lawmakers flat out admitted it was a partisan gerrymander meant to maximize their gains - they did this to insulate themselves from a racial gerrymandering case. It's open-and-shut lol.

[Virginiá]

Can we move the Oregon chat to the Geography and Redistricting subforum...please?

It's amazing how often Greedo seems to steer threads off topic. He's very effective at it.

Greedo / everyone else - Please take the Oregon chatter to another thread plz. If you want I can split it off into a new thread, but it needs to stay out of this thread from here on out.

[Virginiá]

I didn't realize Democrats had a constitutional right to favorable legislative maps

I guess we'll see if Republicans have a constitutional right to rig maps to ensure indefinite majorities.

[Virginiá]

I didn't realize Democrats had a constitutional right to favorable legislative maps

I guess we'll see if Republicans have a constitutional right to rig maps to ensure indefinite majorities.

State legislatures do have the authority to draw congressional districts under the Constitution. If you don't like the way they draw it, elect a new legislature. Such a method is far more democratic than having unelected judges draw maps by fiat.

"Unelected judges drawing maps by fiat" doesn't sound much worse than politicians subverting the idea of free and fair elections by drawing maps to suppress any opposition or backlash from the public. States with one-party rule and no restrictions on redistricting have a much more reliable track record on screwing over the minority party than judges do.

Also, SCOTUS has never said partisan gerrymandering is constitutional. They just never settled on some way to decide when it goes too far and how to tell if it does. I don't know about you, but I think there were some decent challenges on the grounds that such gerrymandering infringes on first amendment rights. People are being punished for the parties they choose to support.

So, sure, legislatures do have the authority to draw maps, but lets not pretend like that authority gives them the ability to violate the constitution in other ways. Just like how conservatives insist that the first amendment protects their ability to throw money at elections, it is being decided whether or not the first amendment protects people from corrupt politicians constantly shuffling their opponent's voters around to prevent them from assembling a majority in state legislatures and Congress.

[Virginiá]

Gerrymandering works by packing a bunch of opposition voters into a few districts, so as to make the remaining districts slightly safer for the majority party. So the "punishment" for opposition voters is having a congressman more to their liking than the one who would represent them otherwise.

And considering three of the North Carolina districts are listed as competitive on Cook and Sabato, I do not think legislative redistricting is the all-powerful tactic of totalitarianism that you think it is.

Competitive maybe because many believe we are in a wave environment that is anti-GOP to the tune of 10-12 points in the House PV, which would be a huge blowout. In a neutral environment, or even only very modestly anti-GOP, NC's delegation would be 10R - 3D. The current environment is not normal, and just because a district may be competitive in a way doesn't mean it isn't still gerrymandered.

I know what gerrymandering is and what tactics that they use to achieve their goals. I mean, responding to me, and telling me that a 10 - 3 map in what is basically a 50/50 state (ok, maybe like 51R-49D, give or take) is fair or not egregious is laughable to say the least. That is the entire point, and it's a similar situation in a number of other states Republicans drew the map in. Take Michigan for instance, where in the state House, Democrats won the popular vote by 8 points and didn't even come close to a majority. If you think that's just dandy, then sure, but you are in the minority, and I don't see what the point of arguing this with you is. This is a pretty cut and dry case of subverting the fundamental design of our system.

If you're fine with a system that allows politicians to insulate themselves from the will of the people in all but the most exceptional circumstances, then all I can say I guess is that I'm glad it's not up to people like you.

This is not to say that I approve of gerrymandering. Districts ought to be as contiguous as possible, mostly reflect county lines, and completely disregard race. But I cannot pretend that deviation from that is unconstitutional just because I do not like it.

There are plenty of instances where the state is granted certain powers but can't abuse it any way they want without running afoul of the constitution. SCOTUS cracking down on gerrymandering would not be much different. It's just way overdue.