Jumbo Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I think the general topic might be worth its own thread http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-judges-find-texas-gerrymandered-maps-on-racial-lines/ar-AAo8JB0?li=BBnb7Kz Federal judges find Texas gerrymandered maps on racial lines Quote AUSTIN, Texas — Federal judges found more problems in Texas' voting rights laws, ruling that Republicans racially gerrymandered some congressional districts to weaken the growing electoral power of minorities, who former President Barack Obama set out to protect at the ballot box before leaving office. The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel in San Antonio gave Democrats hope of new, more favorably drawn maps that could turnover more seats in Congress in 2018. But the judges in their 2-1 decision didn't propose an immediate fix, and Texas could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans hold two of three congressional districts ruled newly invalid and were found to have been partly drawn with discriminatory intent. The GOP-controlled Texas Legislature approved the maps in 2011, the same year then-Gov. Rick Perry signed a voter ID law that ranks among the toughest in the U.S. Courts have since weakened that law, too. Judges noted the "strong racial tension and heated debate about Latinos, Spanish-speaking people, undocumented immigrants and sanctuary cities" that served as the backdrop in the Legislature to Texas adopting the maps and the voter ID law. Those tensions are flaring again over President Donald Trump's executive orders on immigration, and Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is also demanding tough crackdowns on so-called sanctuary cities. "The record indicates not just a hostility toward Democrat districts, but a hostility to minority districts, and a willingness to use race for partisan advantage," U.S. District Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote in their opinion. Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not immediately remark on the ruling. Hispanics were found to have fueled Texas' dramatic growth in the 2010 census, the year before the maps were drawn, accounting for two out of every three new residents in the state. The findings of racially motivated mapmaking satisfied Democrats and minority rights groups, who are now pushing a separate federal court in Texas to determine that the voter ID law was also crafted with discriminatory intent. Texas was forced ahead of the November election to weaken its voter ID law, which allows concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, after a federal appeals court found that the requirements particularly hampered minorities and the poor. The Obama administration had brought the muscle of the U.S. Justice Department into Texas to help challenge both the maps and voter ID law. But barely a month after Trump took office, the federal government reversed course and announced it would no longer argue that Texas purposefully discriminated against minorities with its voter ID law. It was not yet clear whether the Trump administration will also drop opposition to Texas' maps. But U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, in a blistering dissent, had strong words for Obama administration attorneys after they joined the case. "It was obvious, from the start, that the DoJ attorneys viewed state officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynchings," Smith wrote. "And the DoJ lawyers saw themselves as an expeditionary landing party arriving here, just in time, to rescue the state from oppression, obviously presuming that plaintiffs' counsel were not up to the task." The stakes in finding discriminatory intent are higher because it provides a window for opponents to argue that Texas should be forced to resume having changes to voting laws "pre-cleared" by the Justice Department or a federal court. A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling did away with preclearance by striking down a key provision in the federal Voting Rights Act. The congressional districts voided by the panel belong to Democrat Lloyd Doggett and Republicans Will Hurd and Blake Farenthold. Hurd's district, which runs from San Antonio to El Paso, has been a rare competitive swing district in Texas in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 We obviously need to get rid of these judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Gerrymandering has been a really interesting topic to me for a while (being that I geek out on all things not just math-related but also politics). I highly recommend anyone who's interested in this topic watch "The Big Buy," a documentary about Tom Delay. (The Big Buy - Rise and Fall of Tom Delay - Video Dailymotion) Also, I highly recommend this website: The ReDistricting Game It's actually a flash game that lets you gerrymander a fictitious state a number of different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Racism by any other name and the life's blood of the modern "GOP". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Wow. Three replies and we haven't seen the claim that "the Feds require us to create districts that are 95% minority, because it says we can't disenfranchise them entirely."? On a more serious (and more honest) note, though. I can see that it can be tough to tell the difference between racial gerrymandering, and political gerrymandering. (Of course, if you agree that the distinction is irrelevant, because they're both wrong, then it doesn't matter. But then you have to get people to admit that political gerrymandering is wrong, too. And they won't.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 As much as gerrymandering ticks me off (by either party), I can't imagine the complexity and work involved. I've said it before, but I think it's one of the big things I'd want Dems to tackle if they regain control - put it into bipartisan (or nonpartisan) hands. Since it ties in with the gerrymandering issue, I'm curious what kind of options are out there that can work towards addressing both voters suppression and (overhyped) concerns about voter fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I wish they would find my district illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, skinny21 said: As much as gerrymandering ticks me off (by either party), I can't imagine the complexity and work involved. I've said it before, but I think it's one of the big things I'd want Dems to tackle if they regain control - put it into bipartisan (or nonpartisan) hands. Pointing out that California voters actually took it out of the hands of their legislature entirely. And from what I've read, on here, it sounds like they actually made the thing about as non-partisan as you can get. They have a redistricting commission, and the rules for who isn't allowed on the commission sound about as tough as they can be. Not only must people on the commission have never held elective office, or any position with any political party, they have to have not donated more that some small number (like $100) to any political organization, ever. Florida, here, at least made a stab at it, passing a voter initiative that mandated districts be drawn without regard to political party, or to preserve incumbents. It didn't work as well. The legislature kept drawing gerrymandered districts, anyway. And then, after the election, they'd get taken to court. And they'd lose. And they'd wait till the next election, and draw gerrymandered districts again. And so forth. Eventually, the court had to impose districts drawn by the League of Women voters, for the 2016 election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 19 hours ago, twa said: I wish they would find my district illegal I think we'd all be okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Here a book recommendation: https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490464530&sr=1-1&keywords=david+daley Excellent review of the strategic brilliance and foresight behind gop move to significantly advance the state of the art in gerrymandering while the dems were asleep at the wheel..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 On 3/11/2017 at 1:05 PM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: We obviously need to get rid of these judges. These are just "so called judges" On 3/11/2017 at 2:29 PM, twa said: I wish they would find my district illegal I wish they'd find you illegal and ship you to Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 1 minute ago, mistertim said: I wish they'd find you illegal and ship you to Mexico. I might be interested in taking over a Northern sector . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: I might be interested in taking over a Northern sector . I think if you save your breath a man like you could manage it. (Movie Reference). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 It's an interesting enough piece, but the reason it's here is the red-highlighted paragraph--that sounds intriguing. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/two-months-out-of-office-barack-obama-is-having-a-post-presidency-like-no-other/ar-BByN2i6?li=BBnb7Kz Two months out of office, Barack Obama is having a post-presidency like no other Quote <excerpts> The first ****tail party at Barack Obama’s new office last month was certainly more casual than any he had hosted in recent years. The wine bore a random assortment of labels, as if assembled potluck-style. The self-serve appetizers were set out in the narrow hallway. The host, tieless, eschewed formal remarks, as a few dozen of his old administration officials — Joe Biden and former chief of staff Denis McDonough, as well as more junior ones — mingled in a minimalist wood-paneled suite that could be mistaken for a boutique law firm. “It was a bit of a shock to the system,” said Peter Velz, who used to work in the White House communications office. “You’re bumping up right against the vice president as he’s getting cheese from the cheese plate.” As the dinner hour drew near, the former president exited with a familiar excuse, Velz recalled: “He was joking if he doesn’t get back to Michelle, he’s going to be in trouble.” So far, Obama is trying to approach his post-presidency in the same way as his ****tail-hosting duties — keeping things low-key, despite clamoring from Democrats for him to do more. “He is enjoying a lower profile where he can relax, reflect and enjoy his family and friends,” said his former senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Not only are the Obamas still young and unusually popular for a post-White House couple, their decision to stay in Washington while their younger daughter finishes high school has combined with the compulsion of the new Trump administration to keep pulling them back into the spotlight. Trump dropped any remaining veneer of politeness this month with a series of tweets accusing Obama — without a shred of evidence — of illegally surveilling Trump Tower during the campaign. Obama was privately irritated at the allegation, which the director of the FBI and lawmakers from both parties dismissed as unfounded. He has attempted to stay above the fray, watching from the sidelines as Republicans have pressed to unravel a slew of his initiatives — and emphasizing the need for a new generation of political leaders to step up in his place. And yet, while other recent ex-presidents have devoted their retirement years to apolitical, do-gooder causes, Obama is gearing up to throw himself into the wonky and highly partisan issue of redistricting, with the goal of reversing the electoral declines Democrats have experienced nationally. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Getting control the state legislatures and winning governorships- so they can have veto power; should be the #1 focus for the Dems in the 2017-2020 races. After losing congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008; that's what the GOP did. 2010 they won big not just at the federal level but state level. So, they were able to control the drawing the maps and rigging things for themselves. If it was a truely competitive district; would the GOP really win as much as they do now? I say winning control of state legislatures is more important than winning the U.S. House/Senate in 2018. Also, they need to win some govenorships; so at least they would have veto power; over a GOP state controlled legislature. We can't go another decade with the GOP rigging the system; when the GOP doesn't represent a majority of the country's views. It just appears that way on the map; because of the way they draw the districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 On 3/25/2017 at 2:45 PM, mistertim said: I wish they'd find you illegal and ship you to Mexico. You forgot "and make you pay for the wall!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 4 hours ago, Jumbo said: It's an interesting enough piece, but the reason it's here is the red-highlighted paragraph--that sounds intriguing. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/two-months-out-of-office-barack-obama-is-having-a-post-presidency-like-no-other/ar-BByN2i6?li=BBnb7Kz Two months out of office, Barack Obama is having a post-presidency like no other more at link If Obama went after Trump for libel, would Trump take the stand and purger himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 5 hours ago, Jumbo said: The first ****tail party at Barack Obama’s new office last month was certainly more casual than any he had hosted in recent years. The wine bore a random assortment of labels, as if assembled potluck-style. The self-serve appetizers were set out in the narrow hallway. The host, tieless, eschewed formal remarks, as a few dozen of his old administration officials — Joe Biden and former chief of staff Denis McDonough, as well as more junior ones — mingled in a minimalist wood-paneled suite that could be mistaken for a boutique law firm. Remember long ago, reading a really short society thing, stating that the former members of the Carter White house had held a 10 year reunion, or some such. It said that they all wore name tags that read "Hi! I used to be . . . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 1 hour ago, PokerPacker said: If Obama went after Trump for libel, would Trump take the stand and purger himself? Now THAT would be a really interesting scenario. Trump basically accused Obama publicly of committing a felony so I suppose Obama could go after him for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 18 hours ago, PokerPacker said: If Obama went after Trump for libel, would Trump take the stand and purger himself? Obama wouldn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 U.S. top court tosses Republican-drawn North Carolina voting districts http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-tosses-republican-drawn-north-carolina-voting-districts/ar-BBBoo3E Quote The justices upheld a lower court's February 2016 ruling that threw out two majority-black U.S. House of Representatives districts because Republican lawmakers improperly used race as a factor when redrawing the legislative map after the 2010 census. The court was unanimous on upholding the ruling on one of the districts and split 5-3 on the other, with three conservatives dissenting. "The North Carolina Republican legislature tried to rig congressional elections by drawing unconstitutional districts that discriminated against African-Americans and that's wrong," North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat took office in January, said in a statement. The decision came in one of a number of lawsuits accusing Republicans of taking steps at the state level to disenfranchise black and other minority voters who tend to back Democratic candidates. Critics accused Republicans of cramming black voters into what the NAACP civil rights group called "apartheid voting districts" to diminish their voting power and make surrounding districts more white and more likely to support Republicans. Both districts are held by the Democrats. Of North Carolina's 13 representatives in the U.S. House, 10 are Republican. Race can be considered in redrawing boundaries of voting districts only in certain instances, such as when states are seeking to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. That law protects minority voters and was enacted to address a history of racial discrimination in voting, especially in Southern states. Democrats have accused Republicans of taking a number of steps at the state level, also including laws imposing new requirements on voters such as presenting certain types of government-issued identification, in a bid to suppress the vote of minorities, the poor and others who generally favor Democratic candidates. Republicans have said the laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. The Supreme Court has never said legislative districts cannot be mapped based on plainly partisan aims like maximizing one party's election chances. North Carolina Republicans said one of the two districts, called the 12th congressional district, was drawn on purely partisan grounds to benefit Republicans at the expense of Democrats, and the other was drawn to comply with the demands of the Voting Rights Act. The split among the justices was over the 12th district, with conservative Justice Samuel Alito writing in dissent that the court should have been bound by an earlier precedent in which a previous version of the same district was challenged. He was joined by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. "A precedent of this court should not be treated like a disposable household item -- say a paper plate or a napkin -- to be used once and then tossed in the trash," Alito wrote. Writing for the court's majority, liberal Justice Elena Kagan countered that evidence at trial "adequately supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district's reconfiguration." Conservative Clarence Thomas, the court's only black justice, joined the court's majority in both parts of the ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had not yet joined the court when arguments in the case were heard in December, did not participate in the ruling. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to throw out a lower court's decision upholding a similar Republican-backed state legislature redistricting plan in Alabama that crammed black voters into certain districts in a way critics said lessened their influence at the polls. In another redistricting case, the justices ruled on March 1 that a lower court should reassess whether Virginia's Republican-led legislature unlawfully tried to dilute the clout of black voters when it drew a series of state legislative districts. The justices threw out a decision that had upheld all 12 state legislature districts that were challenged. Monday's ruling came one week after the justices rebuffed a Republican bid to revive a strict North Carolina voter-identification law that a lower court found deliberately discriminated against black voters, handing a victory to Democrats and civil rights groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Glad to see at least a few judges can spot the obvious. NC and Texas were just the obvious cases, but it's likely the majority of districts around the country probably need to be redrawn by a non-partisan commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 How do you draw the required minority districts w/o cramming minorities in them and thus reducing their influence in surrounding districts? What % is about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.