Do you support Bartlett v. Strickland?

[WalterWhite]

The ruling found that crossover districts (i.e. districts where the minority population is less than 50% but where minority candidates can still get their candidates of choice elected with the help of crossover support from whites) do not qualify as giving minority voices adequate representation in Congress.

Do you support this ruling? On one hand, this ruling prevents Democrats from creating maps with ridiculously high numbers of crossover districts for the purpose of electing more Democrats to the House (because minorities usually vote Democratic). However, this ruling also enables Republicans to "pack" as many minorities into as few majority-minority districts as possible, minimizing the number of Democrats elected to the House. What are your thoughts?

[WalterWhite]

Bumped

[progressive85]

Oppose.  Districts shouldn't be drawn for the purpose of electing any particular group or party.  Maps should be color-blind and party-blind, they should be based only on geography alone and drawn to keep communities together as much as possible.  It's not that hard - just draw maps that are sensible and the people drawing the maps should not be able to see any information except basic geographical data.

There really needs to be in this century, if we can't do any other simple reform, a complete ban on gerrymandering and the establishment of impartial, nonpartisan commissions (I propose they be made up of random unaffiliated voters) to just draw simple maps with a computer program (like Dave's Redistricting App).

I think we're moving a little bit in that direction after each census.  Let's just finish the job, we'd need a constitutional amendment that takes district-drawing out of the hands of the legislators themselves.  Elected officials should not be trusted with drawing any maps.  Of course we'd need the elected officials to decrease their own power if any amendment would have a chance of getting ratified... so the best way may be state by state reforms.