If you were appointed the drawer all the congressional districts for 2022...

[Virginiá]

We have no idea if teenagers will turn 18, we have no idea if they will reside in said district at 18. We can predict population migration trends fairly well, why shouldn't we draw based on those?

Can you accurately account for where all these children will end up? I'm saying drawing maps that exclude children to cover a period of time where you know those children will become eligible voters is ridiculously unfair.

What you said here: "we have no idea if they will reside in said district," is exactly what I was getting at - we don't know, and therefor we should just assume they will stay put. Of course not all of them will, but we have not ironclad way of knowing where they will be past 18. Not including them in redistricting at all is boneheaded if you ask me - to ignore citizens who are, lets say, 17 years old at the time the map is implemented, then they turn 18 less than a year later and they stay in their district, but now their existence was ignored by mapmakers because they didn't meet this deadline despite the government knowing ahead of time that they would. I dunno..

As for your second part it isn't fair, those individuals get their representatives. It doesn't change that, but California 40 has more non-voters than voters in it. And half as many voters as other congressional districts, why should voters there have a more important vote? That's not how democratic republics are to work.

This argument I have some sympathy for. This type of situation creates a lot of eligible voter/non-citizen imbalances. Personally I've wanted us to give these people pathways to citizenship so we can eliminate that problem, but doubt that will be a reality anytime soon.

For sure California and Texas would probably object to any attempts to switch to only counting citizens. They would stand to lose Congressional representation because of it.

Its funny democrats complaining about gerrymandering ,when they gerrymandered the house for 40 years.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1102/1102gerrymandering.htm

People here, in this thread? I can't speak for the older folks, but most of us weren't even alive, let alone teenagers during these times. And gerrymandering has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the past 2 decades.

I don't find it hypocritical or funny. I'd have objected then to Democrats as well.

[Rjjr77]

We have no idea if teenagers will turn 18, we have no idea if they will reside in said district at 18. We can predict population migration trends fairly well, why shouldn't we draw based on those?

Can you accurately account for where all these children will end up? I'm saying drawing maps that exclude children to cover a period of time where you know those children will become eligible voters is ridiculously unfair.

What you said here: "we have no idea if they will reside in said district," is exactly what I was getting at - we don't know, and therefor we should just assume they will stay put. Of course not all of them will, but we have not ironclad way of knowing where they will be past 18. Not including them in redistricting at all is boneheaded if you ask me - to ignore citizens who are, lets say, 17 years old at the time the map is implemented, then they turn 18 less than a year later and they stay in their district, but now their existence was ignored by mapmakers because they didn't meet this deadline despite the government knowing ahead of time that they would. I dunno..

As for your second part it isn't fair, those individuals get their representatives. It doesn't change that, but California 40 has more non-voters than voters in it. And half as many voters as other congressional districts, why should voters there have a more important vote? That's not how democratic republics are to work.

This argument I have some sympathy for. This type of situation creates a lot of eligible voter/non-citizen imbalances. Personally I've wanted us to give these people pathways to citizenship so we can eliminate that problem, but doubt that will be a reality anytime soon.

For sure California and Texas would probably object to any attempts to switch to only counting citizens. They would stand to lose Congressional representation because of it.

Its funny democrats complaining about gerrymandering ,when they gerrymandered the house for 40 years.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1102/1102gerrymandering.htm

People here, in this thread? I can't speak for the older folks, but most of us weren't even alive, let alone teenagers during these times. And gerrymandering has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the past 2 decades.

I don't find it hypocritical or funny. I'd have objected then to Democrats as well.

I can't disagree with you more, either we should draw districts based on forecasting (which we don't) or draw it based entirely on what the numbers are at the time of the census. The government doesn't know ahead of time that they will meet eligibility, it's a guess me there could be a plague, or they move off to college, or all 17 year olds start a colony. It's a prediction, a likely prediction sure, but a prediction not a known fact.

California and Texas would object, but shouldn't. It's unfair. Ohio, MI, and Alabama are losing congressional representation, while states like AZ, Texas, And California are going to have districts with low number of eligible voters. The fact that lost districts will have more voters than some districts that won't be lost is down right unfair.

[Virginiá]

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree (on the first point anyhow)

[Rjjr77]

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree (on the first point anyhow)

At least you agree on the second point.

[muon2]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

[Rjjr77]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Compactness is a stupid measure of fairness.

Compact and fair. Smaller, localized districts with fairer split would create the closest thing to fair districts.

There is nothing about compactness that makes districts magically fairly balanced partisanwise. See the current NC map for an example.

[Rjjr77]

Do the people who support the removal of Minority majority districts have any reasoning other then wanting to reduce minority representation?

It creates gerrymandering and moves away from compact and fair districts.

Compactness is a stupid measure of fairness.

Compact and fair. Smaller, localized districts with fairer split would create the closest thing to fair districts.

There is nothing about compactness that makes districts magically fairly balanced partisanwise. See the current NC map for an example.

Okay let me spell it out, I figured you'd have picked up on what I've been saying but you keep missing it. Compact = good. Fair = good. This is why I said compact AND fair. Not that compact is a synonym for fair. Compact districts are good, they keep neighboring communities together and make for easier district travel

[muon2]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

[Rjjr77]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

I absolutely disagree with the decision, unanimous or not, I don't think it is the correct way to draw lines, California 40 their vote is worth 2 of mine, that's not one person one vote.

[muon2]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

I absolutely disagree with the decision, unanimous or not, I don't think it is the correct way to draw lines, California 40 their vote is worth 2 of mine, that's not one person one vote.

But the decision was not about the correct way to draw lines. The decision was whether or not the way TX had drawn them was not permitted. They said it was, but it wasn't the only way. For instance if you wanted to exclude nonpermanent military personnel you could. They didn't answer the question as to whether your way was constitutional, but that wasn't used to draw the map. The concurrences made it clear that many justices would find that method ok, too.

CA 40 wasn't considered by the court. They reached a narrow decision based only on the facts before them. So, why do you disagree?

[Rjjr77]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

I absolutely disagree with the decision, unanimous or not, I don't think it is the correct way to draw lines, California 40 their vote is worth 2 of mine, that's not one person one vote.

But the decision was not about the correct way to draw lines. The decision was whether or not the way TX had drawn them was not permitted. They said it was, but it wasn't the only way. For instance if you wanted to exclude nonpermanent military personnel you could. They didn't answer the question as to whether your way was constitutional, but that wasn't used to draw the map. The concurrences made it clear that many justices would find that method ok, too.

CA 40 wasn't considered by the court. They reached a narrow decision based only on the facts before them. So, why do you disagree?

I would disagree because I think Voting age citizens should be the only way to draw lines, and that the other way violates the 14th amendment. By diluting the 1 person 1 vote rule

[muon2]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

I absolutely disagree with the decision, unanimous or not, I don't think it is the correct way to draw lines, California 40 their vote is worth 2 of mine, that's not one person one vote.

But the decision was not about the correct way to draw lines. The decision was whether or not the way TX had drawn them was not permitted. They said it was, but it wasn't the only way. For instance if you wanted to exclude nonpermanent military personnel you could. They didn't answer the question as to whether your way was constitutional, but that wasn't used to draw the map. The concurrences made it clear that many justices would find that method ok, too.

CA 40 wasn't considered by the court. They reached a narrow decision based only on the facts before them. So, why do you disagree?

I would disagree because I think Voting age citizens should be the only way to draw lines, and that the other way violates the 14th amendment. By diluting the 1 person 1 vote rule

But that would require activist judges that go beyond the case in question and past precedent applied to that case. Are you one who wants activist judges as long as they are conservative?

[Rjjr77]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

I absolutely disagree with the decision, unanimous or not, I don't think it is the correct way to draw lines, California 40 their vote is worth 2 of mine, that's not one person one vote.

But the decision was not about the correct way to draw lines. The decision was whether or not the way TX had drawn them was not permitted. They said it was, but it wasn't the only way. For instance if you wanted to exclude nonpermanent military personnel you could. They didn't answer the question as to whether your way was constitutional, but that wasn't used to draw the map. The concurrences made it clear that many justices would find that method ok, too.

CA 40 wasn't considered by the court. They reached a narrow decision based only on the facts before them. So, why do you disagree?

I would disagree because I think Voting age citizens should be the only way to draw lines, and that the other way violates the 14th amendment. By diluting the 1 person 1 vote rule

But that would require activist judges that go beyond the case in question and past precedent applied to that case. Are you one who wants activist judges as long as they are conservative?

Actually I consider myself an originalist, one who does not believe in the weight of past precedent, but the laws themselves. In this case the 14th amendment.

[muon2]

The subject of using the CVAP was dealt with in the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Evenwel last year. The Constitution requires apportionment of seats to be by total population. The decision found that there is no mandate to use CVAP to draw lines, so the districts drawn with total population were constitutional. They recognized that some states use variations on total population to deal with military or prison population, and they left open the question of whether a state could use CVAP to draw districts within one state.

Doesn't mean its the correct decision, this thread is about if you got to draw the lines with no restrictions.

Are you disagreeing with this unanimous decision?

If got to draw the lines without restrictions, I would start with the Constitution. But my response was driven by your conversation which seemed to go beyond what one would like to do, but one should do.

I absolutely disagree with the decision, unanimous or not, I don't think it is the correct way to draw lines, California 40 their vote is worth 2 of mine, that's not one person one vote.

But the decision was not about the correct way to draw lines. The decision was whether or not the way TX had drawn them was not permitted. They said it was, but it wasn't the only way. For instance if you wanted to exclude nonpermanent military personnel you could. They didn't answer the question as to whether your way was constitutional, but that wasn't used to draw the map. The concurrences made it clear that many justices would find that method ok, too.

CA 40 wasn't considered by the court. They reached a narrow decision based only on the facts before them. So, why do you disagree?

I would disagree because I think Voting age citizens should be the only way to draw lines, and that the other way violates the 14th amendment. By diluting the 1 person 1 vote rule

But that would require activist judges that go beyond the case in question and past precedent applied to that case. Are you one who wants activist judges as long as they are conservative?

Actually I consider myself an originalist, one who does not believe in the weight of past precedent, but the laws themselves. In this case the 14th amendment.

As I noted there are justices who would agree with you that it would be better if the states used that method, but even Justice Thomas wouldn't be so activist as to impose it on the states. He is certainly an originalist in approach, and here's what he said in concurrence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.