North Carolina GOP (The Gift That Keeps On Giving): NCGOP Chair Indicted (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:08:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  North Carolina GOP (The Gift That Keeps On Giving): NCGOP Chair Indicted (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: North Carolina GOP (The Gift That Keeps On Giving): NCGOP Chair Indicted  (Read 30674 times)
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,286


« on: December 19, 2018, 01:44:09 AM »
« edited: December 19, 2018, 01:47:11 AM by Tintrlvr »

elll-ooo-elll:



(this maneuver is not guaranteed to succeed fwiw)

...wait, what does that mean?

In the US, a court case originally brought in state court can be removed to federal court if there is a substantial federal issue (an issue under federal law) at stake in the case. State courts can decide federal law, but the defendant (who didn't choose the forum of the case) generally has a right to have federal issues decided in federal court so can seek removal in the early stages of the case. If removed, all federal issues would be decided in federal court, and any remaining state law issues are remanded to state court. A defendant can file for removal to federal court at pretty much any time, and the entire proceeding has to be stopped in state court until the federal court has ruled as to whether it has jurisdiction. If the federal court has jurisdiction, it has to take the case; if it doesn't (because, among other possible reasons, there is no substantial federal issue), it has to remand the case back to state court.

The challenge to the districts is based purely on state law, the North Carolina Constitution. However, the NCGOP is making two arguments here for removal.

The first is that the at least some of the districts sought to be changed were drawn on the order of a federal court (though not by a federal court) in order to ensure compliance with federal law (the VRA) and the federal Constitution, and then they hand-wave to suggest that changing those districts at all would be potentially contrary to or somehow in conflict with federal law, or at least involve interests that could be contrary to federal law (even though it obviously wouldn't be) and therefore they have a right to have a federal court to hear the case. This argument is obvious bunk, and the federal courts will see right through it.

The second argument is truly ridiculous; they claim that any redraw of the map would violate an ostensible federal constitutional right of Republican voters to have representation in Republican-favoring gerrymandered districts. This is even more obvious bunk, and the federal courts will laugh it back to state court.

So it's mostly just a time-wasting procedural tactic in this particular instance. Presumably they are trying to run out the clock on having to redraw before the 2020 elections.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,286


« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2018, 01:56:22 AM »

I still don't like VRA districts as it does segregate the country too much. Its clear outside the DEEP racist hicks only a few VRA districts are required.

Lets see
Texas - No longer a need for strict VRA. if the GOP wants to gerrymander against hispanics they can get BTFO in a dummymander
GA-Bishops district is losing population anyway
FL- there is one northern florida black district. The three cuban districts are represented by white people. The black district could just be  2 districts now. One lean-Likely D in Jax and a Likely R Talhasee district.
The rest of America clearly has no problem electing black people in a major amount. See Lauren Underwood in Il 14th , Joe neguse in Co 2nd and Hayes in Ct 5. All of these are very low population african american districts and  two of them are swing districts .  Only a few states like MS AL and LA probably need it because of their racially polarized history.

This missed the point entirely. The VRA is not about electing black or other minority politicians. It is about enabling minority voters to elect the candidates of their choice (even when that candidate is not of that minority group). Underwood, Neguse and Hayes have nothing to do with the VRA.

I basically agree that VRA districts are not great in many ways, but it's the only real way to ensure that minority voters can elect candidates of their choice in an FPTP, single-member district system in states that are highly polarized on racial lines (including all of the states you mentioned) barring some sort of very strong federal anti-gerrymandering law (or constitutional finding).
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 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.