New PA Maps In Effect

[Brittain33]

If you don't like the way your state legislature redistricts, you have three options: 1) amend the U.S. Constitution, 2) get Congress to pass a law on redistricting to your liking, or 3) vote for a divided legislature (if you're "nonpartisan" - which I think is about as common among people who deeply care about politics as a unicorn) or your party's legislature in a redistricting year. Absent that, the courts should butt out of redistricting. It's not in their purview.

What if the state legislature is gerrymandered so heavily following the 2010 election that it is no longer a democratically elected body, cinyc? This is what happened in WI and NC. No point telling people in WI to "elect a legislature you like" when it's proven impossible to dislodge a single-party state without overwhelming force. Now that Democrats are winning some unlikely districts, the governor is refusing to hold elections in vacant senate seats even though election day is 9 months away. The Republicans have completely broken the system and don't believe in democracy. The courts need to step in, just like they had to with Southern Democrats jimrtex cites from two generations ago.

[windjammer]

When will we know the new map has been selected?

[Nyvin]

When will we know the new map has been selected?

Probably tomorrow

[cinyc]

If you don't like the way your state legislature redistricts, you have three options: 1) amend the U.S. Constitution, 2) get Congress to pass a law on redistricting to your liking, or 3) vote for a divided legislature (if you're "nonpartisan" - which I think is about as common among people who deeply care about politics as a unicorn) or your party's legislature in a redistricting year. Absent that, the courts should butt out of redistricting. It's not in their purview.

What if the state legislature is gerrymandered so heavily following the 2010 election that it is no longer a democratically elected body, cinyc? This is what happened in WI and NC. No point telling people in WI to "elect a legislature you like" when it's proven impossible to dislodge a single-party state without overwhelming force. Now that Democrats are winning some unlikely districts, the governor is refusing to hold elections in vacant senate seats even though election day is 9 months away. The Republicans have completely broken the system and don't believe in democracy. The courts need to step in, just like they had to with Southern Democrats jimrtex cites from two generations ago.

You are wrong about Wisconsin. The Wisconsin legislature is not in session - and won’t be until after the election, unless a special session is called. The governor has no obligation - or even right - to call a special election under those circumstances. Your problem is with Wisconsin law, which doesn’t call for the state to waste money on a useless election that would have no real world consequences - as it probably shouldn’t.

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states. It’s always the Republican ones that raise your ire. Start with the Democrat Gerrymander in your own home state’s legislature, for example. I guess you’d agree that Massachusetts Democrats have broken the system and don’t believe in democracy, right?  I’m also sure you and other Democrats were real concerned when Democrats Gerrymandered NC so that no Republicans could possibly win the state legislature - until they overcame the map and did.

The fact is no Gerrymander is truly safe 8 or 10 years out. Conditions change. Many a Gerrymander becomes a dummymander. No map is “safe”.

Anyway, the section of the U.S. Constitution I cited applies to Congressional redistricting, not state redistricting. It’s up to the states to decide how to redistrict their legislatures.

[Brittain33]

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states.

Cinyc, I don't expect you to be an expert in my posts, but after the 20th false accusation of "why don't Democrats care about Maryland, huh?!" it's become too boring to indulge these kinds of attacks. Do a search, you can find plenty of posts where I say Maryland's gerrymander should go, too, and just about every other Democrat here is consistent in opposing partisan gerrymandering. As far as Massachusetts's map, you're far too smart to blame gerrymandering when you know the issue in Massachusetts is mainly the lack of a bench / concentration of Republican voters.

The fact is there is no "good government" argument to defend gerrymandering by pretending voters have recourse through state legislatures. After Republicans won big in 2010, they gerrymandered several states to impose de facto single-party government in those states and have used legislative power to then weaken levers available to citizens through local government, judiciary, and future elections. I'm not interested in hearing justifications for it; in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, it is all about one party holding power at the expense of democracy. I would happily throw away Maryland's advantages in the interest of democracy everywhere.

[gerritcole]

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states.

Cinyc, I don't expect you to be an expert in my posts, but after the 20th false accusation of "why don't Democrats care about Maryland, huh?!" it's become too boring to indulge these kinds of attacks. Do a search, you can find plenty of posts where I saw Maryland's gerrymander should go, too, and just about every other Democrat here is consistent in opposing partisan gerrymandering. As far as Massachusetts's map, you're far too smart to blame gerrymandering when you know the issue in Massachusetts is mainly the lack of a bench / concentration of Republican voters.

The fact is there is no "good government" argument to defend gerrymandering by pretending voters have recourse through state legislatures. After Republicans won big in 2010, they gerrymandered several states to impose de facto single-party government in those states and have used legislative power to then weaken levers available to citizens through local government, judiciary, and future elections. I'm not interested in hearing justifications for it; in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, it is all about one party holding power at the expense of democracy. I would happily throw away Maryland's advantages in the interest of democracy everywhere.

gerrymandering helped the dems hold the house from 1952-1994, but when the tables turn, it suddenly becomes a 'democracy' issue

EDIT I mean 1994 till the repub revolution, not 1944

[Nyvin]

If you don't like the way your state legislature redistricts, you have three options: 1) amend the U.S. Constitution, 2) get Congress to pass a law on redistricting to your liking, or 3) vote for a divided legislature (if you're "nonpartisan" - which I think is about as common among people who deeply care about politics as a unicorn) or your party's legislature in a redistricting year. Absent that, the courts should butt out of redistricting. It's not in their purview.

What if the state legislature is gerrymandered so heavily following the 2010 election that it is no longer a democratically elected body, cinyc? This is what happened in WI and NC. No point telling people in WI to "elect a legislature you like" when it's proven impossible to dislodge a single-party state without overwhelming force. Now that Democrats are winning some unlikely districts, the governor is refusing to hold elections in vacant senate seats even though election day is 9 months away. The Republicans have completely broken the system and don't believe in democracy. The courts need to step in, just like they had to with Southern Democrats jimrtex cites from two generations ago.

You are wrong about Wisconsin. The Wisconsin legislature is not in session - and won’t be until after the election, unless a special session is called. The governor has no obligation - or even right - to call a special election under those circumstances. Your problem is with Wisconsin law, which doesn’t call for the state to waste money on a useless election that would have no real world consequences - as it probably shouldn’t.

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states. It’s always the Republican ones that raise your ire. Start with the Democrat Gerrymander in your own home state’s legislature, for example. I guess you’d agree that Massachusetts Democrats have broken the system and don’t believe in democracy, right?  I’m also sure you and other Democrats were real concerned when Democrats Gerrymandered NC so that no Republicans could possibly win the state legislature - until they overcame the map and did.

The fact is no Gerrymander is truly safe 8 or 10 years out. Conditions change. Many a Gerrymander becomes a dummymander. No map is “safe”.

Anyway, the section of the U.S. Constitution I cited applies to Congressional redistricting, not state redistricting. It’s up to the states to decide how to redistrict their legislatures.

There are independent commissions in California and Washington, and a politically appointed commission in New Jersey and Hawaii.  

Sure, Democratic Gerrymandering hasn't been rooted out everywhere but I would say the Democrats are doing a whole hell of a lot more than the Republicans around the country.  

I know you just want to play the #whataboutism card for this, but the problem still exist whether it's one or both parties doing it.

gerrymandering helped the dems hold the house from 1952-1944, but when the tables turn, it suddenly becomes a 'democracy' issue

It was a problem then and it's a problem now.

[Brittain33]

gerrymandering helped the dems hold the house from 1952-1944, but when the tables turn, it suddenly becomes a 'democracy' issue

1. I don't defend gerrymandering then or now.

2. If it helps you understand why, consider that the people doing gerrymandering in the South, although Democrats, were largely white conservative men—the ones whose intellectual descendents switched parties and are now gerrymandering for Republicans. In the north, gerrymandering before the 1960s favored rural areas over the cities—and guess how those rural areas vote!

I'm a Democrat, but I'm not a fan of Thaddeus Bilbo or Strom Thurmond. This isn't rocket science.

3. 1952-1944 is a very weird period to pick out for Democratic dominance. Harry Truman found Congress pretty frustrating to work with...

[Brittain33]

Maybe we need a sticky for Democrats to post "I hate gerrymandering everywhere and hope the Supreme Court strikes them down in Gill v. Whitford, except for Maryland, because it's one state it should be allowed" since so many of our blue avatars claim to have seen this view widely expressed.

[cinyc]

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states.

Cinyc, I don't expect you to be an expert in my posts, but after the 20th false accusation of "why don't Democrats care about Maryland, huh?!" it's become too boring to indulge these kinds of attacks. Do a search, you can find plenty of posts where I say Maryland's gerrymander should go, too, and just about every other Democrat here is consistent in opposing partisan gerrymandering. As far as Massachusetts's map, you're far too smart to blame gerrymandering when you know the issue in Massachusetts is mainly the lack of a bench / concentration of Republican voters.

The fact is there is no "good government" argument to defend gerrymandering by pretending voters have recourse through state legislatures. After Republicans won big in 2010, they gerrymandered several states to impose de facto single-party government in those states and have used legislative power to then weaken levers available to citizens through local government, judiciary, and future elections. I'm not interested in hearing justifications for it; in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, it is all about one party holding power at the expense of democracy. I would happily throw away Maryland's advantages in the interest of democracy everywhere.

I’m talking about the Massachusetts legislature map, not the Congressional map, where Republicans have what, 6/40 seats in the Senate and something like 20% of the seats in the House? If “proportionality” is what we strive for because it is “fair”, shouldn’t those numbers be higher so that Republicans could create a bench? After all, we have posters here calling for Democrats to get 9/18 seats in PA by forcing a Democratic Gerrymander on the state to overcome the Democrats’ geographical disadvantages there. If “proportionality” is good for PA, why isn’t it good for Massachusetts? In other words, if you want seats in PA for your party in the name of “proportionality” and “democracy”, I want seats for my party in Democratic states like Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, etc. If you get your PA Democratic Gerrymander, I want my Massachusetts Republican Gerrymander. You can’t have it both ways.

My concept of good government simply differs from yours. For me, it is not good government for judges to make up rights that haven’t existed for 200+ years. My concept of good government means that people who want change effect that change in the ways prescribed by the constitution - get Congress to pass a law on redistricting, elect your party to the state legislature or amend the constitution. What’s not fair is to change the rules to help one party.

[Nyvin]

As for the alleged non-overcomeable Gerrymander in NC, funny - I never see you or most Democrats complaining about Democratic Gerrymandering in Democratic states.

Cinyc, I don't expect you to be an expert in my posts, but after the 20th false accusation of "why don't Democrats care about Maryland, huh?!" it's become too boring to indulge these kinds of attacks. Do a search, you can find plenty of posts where I say Maryland's gerrymander should go, too, and just about every other Democrat here is consistent in opposing partisan gerrymandering. As far as Massachusetts's map, you're far too smart to blame gerrymandering when you know the issue in Massachusetts is mainly the lack of a bench / concentration of Republican voters.

The fact is there is no "good government" argument to defend gerrymandering by pretending voters have recourse through state legislatures. After Republicans won big in 2010, they gerrymandered several states to impose de facto single-party government in those states and have used legislative power to then weaken levers available to citizens through local government, judiciary, and future elections. I'm not interested in hearing justifications for it; in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, it is all about one party holding power at the expense of democracy. I would happily throw away Maryland's advantages in the interest of democracy everywhere.

I’m talking about the Massachusetts legislature map, not the Congressional map, where Republicans have what, 6/40 seats in the Senate and something like 20% of the seats in the House? If “proportionality” is what we strive for because it is “fair”, shouldn’t those numbers be higher so that Republicans could create a bench? After all, we have posters here calling for Democrats to get 9/18 seats in PA by forcing a Democratic Gerrymander on the state to overcome the Democrats’ geographical disadvantages there. If “proportionality” is good for PA, why isn’t it good for Massachusetts? In other words, if you want seats in PA for your party in the name of “proportionality” and “democracy”, I want seats for my party in Democratic states like Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, etc. If you get your PA Democratic Gerrymander, I want my Massachusetts Republican Gerrymander. You can’t have it both ways.

I'm 99% sure the national Democratic Party would accept this offer in a heart beat.   

There already is an independent commission in California btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Brown Vs Board of Education created a "right" that didn't exist previously.   So did Citizens United.    Lots of "rights" are made from the philosophical points of view of the judges.   That's been the nature of the beast since inception.   It's a hallow argument that judges shouldn't have any say in redistricting.    We live in a system of checks and balances....THAT'S something the founding fathers strove to achieve.

[Brittain33]

I’m talking about the Massachusetts legislature map, not the Congressional map, where Republicans have what, 6/40 seats in the Senate and something like 20% of the seats in the House? If “proportionality” is what we strive for because it is “fair”, shouldn’t those numbers be higher so that Republicans could create a bench? After all, we have posters here calling for Democrats to get 9/18 seats in PA by forcing a Democratic Gerrymander on the state to overcome the Democrats’ geographical disadvantages there. If “proportionality” is good for PA, why isn’t it good for Massachusetts? In other words, if you want seats in PA for your party in the name of “proportionality” and “democracy”, I want seats for my party in Democratic states like Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, etc. If you get your PA Democratic Gerrymander, I want my Massachusetts Republican Gerrymander. You can’t have it both ways.

*shrug* I haven't said anything about proportionality, and I don't expect a 9/9 Pennsylvania map because it's probably too tough to get to given demographics. My beef is with Wisconsin drawing maps where in a 50/50 state, whatever happens in elections, you get Republican state government because after 2010, the Republican state legislature gerrymandered their maps to get a one-party state. My beef is with everything North Carolina has done on this count, too. I'm happy to have that argument.

Massachusetts is a state that votes routinely 60/40 in federal elections and has no Republican bench locally, and where legislative elections often get federalized, which is why legislatively the party fails to break through. We are not a politically polarized state; Democrats win everywhere. You know all this, of course. But if you want to keep bringing up Massachusetts, next time you can show me some packed and cracked Republican communities to make your point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not interested in democratic government or representative government if your team gets to be in control of a 50/50 state because you won one election before redistricting. You celebrate one-party government because you can find a way to do it, not because it's right or because it's democratic. I find that un-American and counter to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the principles of our democracy.

[DrScholl]

A fair map could lead to relative proportionality in some states, but it isn't something that should really be taken into account. The problem with an argument about proportionality is that geography doesn't always allow for it because one party is sometimes packed heavily in one area of a state and it would take gerrymandering just to achieve parity.

[LimoLiberal]

Anybody know what time the maps will be released tomorrow?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

A fair map could lead to relative proportionality in some states, but it isn't something that should really be taken into account. The problem with an argument about proportionality is that geography doesn't always allow for it because one party is sometimes packed heavily in one area of a state and it would take gerrymandering just to achieve parity.

Proportionality is impossible in Massachusetts while truly  respecting CoI, though a 5D-4Swing map is possible if one is focused solely on proportionality.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[Virginiá]

gerrymandering helped the dems hold the house from 1952-1944, but when the tables turn, it suddenly becomes a 'democracy' issue

The average age of users on this site is probably around college-aged (give or take) - not old enough to have been an adult during those years. Why should they care what power-hungry politicians back then used to do with maps? Many of us just want this crap to end. So forgive us if we don't want to give Republicans "their turn" to abuse their power to rig elections in their favor.

Your kind of logic is also a great way to ensure bad things like this never end, since there will always be one party claiming it's their turn to thwart the will of voters.

[Skill and Chance]

A fair map could lead to relative proportionality in some states, but it isn't something that should really be taken into account. The problem with an argument about proportionality is that geography doesn't always allow for it because one party is sometimes packed heavily in one area of a state and it would take gerrymandering just to achieve parity.

On the other hand, US House districting rules that effectively require maximizing the influence of large cities would seem like a justified counterbalance to the Senate IMO.

[gerritcole]

gerrymandering helped the dems hold the house from 1952-1944, but when the tables turn, it suddenly becomes a 'democracy' issue

The average age of users on this site is probably around college-aged (give or take) - not old enough to have been an adult during those years. Why should they care what power-hungry politicians back then used to do with maps? Many of us just want this crap to end. So forgive us if we don't want to give Republicans "their turn" to abuse their power to rig elections in their favor.

Your kind of logic is also a great way to ensure bad things like this never end, since there will always be one party claiming it's their turn to thwart the will of voters.

i meant 1994 whoops, that's a lot more recent. what's a fair way to draw districts then in your opinion?

[Virginiá]

i meant 1994 whoops, that's a lot more recent. what's a fair way to draw districts then in your opinion?

Independent commissions where the individuals are not allowed to be lobbyists, lawmakers, party officials and so on, which specific rules that prohibit favoring a party and/or person(s). The map can even be created in a public space, with everything fully documented. Then hold hearings to solicit input. This way there is no secret map that someone pulled out of a party lawyer's desk drawer. Obviously this is just a basic outline - more specific rules and procedures would have to be added. You would have to develop a reasonable way to pick the people as well.

This isn't brain surgery after all. There just needs to be a little trust and cooperation between the two parties to develop a process that creates an acceptable map.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's a shame that this beautiful, flawless map won't be chosen by the court.

[Dr. Arch]

It's a shame that this beautiful, flawless map won't be chosen by the court.

lmao, how many D seats here, 13? 15?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Appears to be 12 D seats. Six Seats Look R - the light blue in the NE, the olive green next to it, the gray next to that, the Turquoise-ish thing in the SW, the black seat next to that, and the brown seat next to that.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's a shame that this beautiful, flawless map won't be chosen by the court.

That thing is an abomination

[King Lear]

When is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court going to release their new map today?