Michigan GOP claims independent redistricting violates the First Amendment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:27:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Michigan GOP claims independent redistricting violates the First Amendment
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Michigan GOP claims independent redistricting violates the First Amendment  (Read 1388 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 09, 2019, 06:03:17 PM »

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/9/20850936/gerrymandering-michigan-commission-republican-legal-argument

Truly the most bizarre argument on redistricting I've ever ever heard. Also weird they're pushing this since Whitmer will just veto their maps anyway.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2019, 06:24:15 PM »

Independent redistricting also causes autism.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2019, 07:15:53 PM »

Independent redistricting also causes chemtrails.
FTFY
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2019, 05:17:03 AM »

this really seems like something that could easily be solved with some AI
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2019, 08:49:19 AM »

this really seems like something that could easily be solved with some AI
An AI would probably do something like draw a map where all districts were closest in area size as possible or something like that. Bad idea.

Computer assisted independent redistricting like in Iowa though is very useful.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2019, 08:50:27 AM »

this really seems like something that could easily be solved with some AI

You want the Skynet handling redistricting? No thanks.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2019, 08:53:01 AM »

this really seems like something that could easily be solved with some AI
An AI would probably do something like draw a map where all districts were closest in area size as possible or something like that. Bad idea.
nah, I was imagining something that takes demographics into account.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,454
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2019, 09:29:54 AM »

News at 11 the GOP tries to rig elections. They know that fair maps would ruin their chances in many legislatures.

Independent redistricting also causes autism.

I thought they cause the same cancer as windmills Huh
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2019, 10:43:18 AM »

Independent redistricting also causes autism.

I thought they cause the same cancer as windmills Huh

How about both?
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2019, 06:28:42 PM »

If we'd just have proportional representation it would eliminate this stupid redistricting game.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2019, 06:58:11 PM »

I don't think they'll win this case on the merits, but I don't think the legal argument is particularly far-fetched:  if identifiable partisans are prohibited from serving on "independent" redistricting commissions (like the MI law allows), then the government is barring them from participating in what SCOTUS has called a strictly political process on the basis of their association with a political party. 
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2019, 04:23:12 PM »

I don't think they'll win this case on the merits, but I don't think the legal argument is particularly far-fetched:  if identifiable partisans are prohibited from serving on "independent" redistricting commissions (like the MI law allows), then the government is barring them from participating in what SCOTUS has called a strictly political process on the basis of their association with a political party. 
Eh, if the law actually barred individuals from serving on the commission based purely on party registration, that would be a strong argument. As I understand it, Michigan’s law just bars current candidates for office, party officials, and registered lobbyists from serving on the redistricting commission. Thats just basic separation of powers and avoidance of conflict of interest stuff.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2019, 12:39:28 PM »

If we'd just have proportional representation it would eliminate this stupid redistricting game.
Solution!

A Unicameral Senate of 101 members elected by proportional representation-list, like Israel. The list predominantly eliminates undue influence by regional concentration of population while fairly representing the whole country.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2019, 10:07:50 PM »

I don't think they'll win this case on the merits, but I don't think the legal argument is particularly far-fetched:  if identifiable partisans are prohibited from serving on "independent" redistricting commissions (like the MI law allows), then the government is barring them from participating in what SCOTUS has called a strictly political process on the basis of their association with a political party. 
Eh, if the law actually barred individuals from serving on the commission based purely on party registration, that would be a strong argument. As I understand it, Michigan’s law just bars current candidates for office, party officials, and registered lobbyists from serving on the redistricting commission. Thats just basic separation of powers and avoidance of conflict of interest stuff.
It also bars parents, children, and spouses of those persons (siblings are OK unless you are married to them). It precludes precinct committeemen from serving.

Michigan does not have partisan registration. Voters select a party anonymously on the primary ballot.

It is entirely feasible for someone to declare they are Democrat, Republican, or neither, and have no way of checking. The commission will be chosen by lottery, with legislative leaders limited in their strikes.

Part of the claim of the lawsuit is due process, that the commission is supposed to be bipartisan, where Republicans are presumed to be pro-Republican and Democrats are presumed to be pro-Democratic, yet because Republican officials are excluded from the process there is no way to keep sleeper agents out of the commission.

Plus the criteria are backwards, with partisan "fairness" rating above compactness and integrity of legal subdivisions.

It is a political trainwreck that only the LWV could love.

Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2019, 12:49:07 AM »

I think the restrictions are broader than necessary, and that was one of my biggest oppositions to the proposal, but MIGOP's complaints here are disingenuous. I certainly understand the rationale for restricting family members of people who ran or worked for an elected official, but parents, children, and spouses can have pretty different political beliefs. I really don't know how you can avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater here... if you want to have an objective standard, it's going to be either way too narrow or way too broad.

this really seems like something that could easily be solved with some AI

That's what I advocated for.
Logged
GM Team Member and Senator WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,622
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2019, 11:02:59 AM »

If we'd just have proportional representation it would eliminate this stupid redistricting game.
Solution!

A Unicameral Senate of 101 members elected by proportional representation-list, like Israel. The list predominantly eliminates undue influence by regional concentration of population while fairly representing the whole country.
Assuming you're not being ironic, 101 is waaaay too low. 1001? That's much better.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2019, 09:47:51 PM »

If we'd just have proportional representation it would eliminate this stupid redistricting game.
Solution!

A Unicameral Senate of 101 members elected by proportional representation-list, like Israel. The list predominantly eliminates undue influence by regional concentration of population while fairly representing the whole country.
Assuming you're not being ironic, 101 is waaaay too low. 1001? That's much better.
I disagree. The House of Representatives shows what happens when the legislature is too large.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2019, 07:31:45 AM »

If we'd just have proportional representation it would eliminate this stupid redistricting game.
Solution!

A Unicameral Senate of 101 members elected by proportional representation-list, like Israel. The list predominantly eliminates undue influence by regional concentration of population while fairly representing the whole country.
Assuming you're not being ironic, 101 is waaaay too low. 1001? That's much better.
I disagree. The House of Representatives shows what happens when the legislature is too large.

You're gonna have to expand on that. This isn't just self-evident, and size also isn't the only difference between the chambers.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2019, 11:22:14 AM »

The House is honestly not that notably large. The British House of Commons, French Parliament, German Bundestag and many other legislatures have more members. Even the Canadian Parliament is about 75% of its size.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2019, 12:55:52 PM »

The House is honestly not that notably large. The British House of Commons, French Parliament, German Bundestag and many other legislatures have more members. Even the Canadian Parliament is about 75% of its size.

Also, those countries all have much smaller populations.
Logged
Yellowhammer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2019, 12:54:03 AM »

The House is honestly not that notably large. The British House of Commons, French Parliament, German Bundestag and many other legislatures have more members. Even the Canadian Parliament is about 75% of its size.

Yeah we should at least adopt the cube root rule for the house -- it would increase its size by about 50%.
Only 435 representatives for ~330 million people is ludicrous.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2019, 08:20:21 AM »

The House is honestly not that notably large. The British House of Commons, French Parliament, German Bundestag and many other legislatures have more members. Even the Canadian Parliament is about 75% of its size.

Yeah we should at least adopt the cube root rule for the house -- it would increase its size by about 50%.
Only 435 representatives for ~330 million people is ludicrous.

I would favor either this or the Wyoming rule.
Logged
Storr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,094
Moldova, Republic of


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2019, 12:59:03 PM »

The House is honestly not that notably large. The British House of Commons, French Parliament, German Bundestag and many other legislatures have more members. Even the Canadian Parliament is about 75% of its size.

Yeah we should at least adopt the cube root rule for the house -- it would increase its size by about 50%.
Only 435 representatives for ~330 million people is ludicrous.

I would favor either this or the Wyoming rule.
I totally agree with these ideas as well. But, I know that one reason the Congress used when capping the number at 435 was that the House chamber couldn't handle anymore seats. I wonder what would be a solution to this? I doubt members, even with possibly giving non-main chamber seats to new members, would be happy having their seats in some room away from the main chamber in one of the office buildings or at some other remote site. Maybe it's time to build a new addition to the Capitol to serve as the chamber of an enlarged House? It could be above the visitor's center, or South of (since the House office buildings are South of the Capitol building) the current House Chamber in the Capitol building, connected by underground passageways to existing buildings, possibly? The current House Chamber could be kept in its current state for historic purposes and used for special events like the State of the Union address, similar to how the old Senate chamber is kept in its mid-19th Century state (complete with spittoons, lol). Expanding the current chamber is also an option. But, I would imagine it would cost as nearly much as building a new chamber, as well as impact the Capitol building's historic integrity and as a result face opposition from historic preservationists and the public.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2019, 06:29:28 PM »

A thousand member legislature is hardly feasible, and I believe that opponents of the Traditional Legislative Model in America must propose strictly feasible proposals if we want to be taken seriously.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.239 seconds with 12 queries.