AZ State Legislature vs AZ Independent Redisticting Commission

No surprise here that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts dissented, but this is a HUGE blow to the GOP's gerrymandering craze, a full-blown effort to strip citizens of their right to representation under the Constitution and send their own lackeys to DC instead of those chosen by the elecorate.

The Supremes have finally opened the door to equal representation under the law, and this could be a fatal blow to the status quo election results we've seen ruin what's left of our democracy.....


Under Arizona’s Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking authority on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws andvconstitutional amendments by ballot initiative, andthey may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. “Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.” Art. XXII, §14.

In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizona’s Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, thevArizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Arizona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its mapvviolated the “Elections Clause” of the U. S. Constitution, which provides: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Because “Legislature” means the State’s representative assembly, the Arizona Legislature contended, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistricting. A three-judge District Court held that the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue, but rejected its complaint on the merits.


Electoral reform efforts in several other states are surely affected as well; like Arizona, California has its own independent redistricting commission that would've bit the dust if the plaintiffs had won. Also Florida voters passed anti-gerrymandering rules in 2010 (still subject to ongoing litigation in state court), and redistricting measures have appeared on the ballot in other states like Ohio.

Light at the end of the tunnel my fellow Americans!

 

If the Supreme Court solves our gerrymandering problem, how are Democrats supposed to explain their losses? Every time they loose an election, they accuse the Republicans of gerrymandering and/or vote rigging.

Also, take a guess at who these districts support. I'll give you a hint: it's not the Republicans.

 

A, the classic tu quoque argument. It's OK if we do it, because they do it too!. Yes, it's been SOP since forever that whatever party gets control of the state legislature, immediately takes steps to concentrate the voters for the other party so as to minimize their representation. I personally feel that gerrymandering, by either party, is a distortion of the will of the people. A bad practice.

 

I am not a Republican. I am simply pointing out the fact that both parties are guilty (of course, the OP will never recognize that).

 

Historically it's been almost a wash, but according to stats provided by Mother Jones (if you have a better source, please provide), post 2010 gerrymandering in the nine states that show a substantial discrepancy between vote share and seat share is revealing. The net gain in 2012 was R +7.1.

But the fact most relevant to my post is that of those nine gerrymandered states with the most substantial discrepancy between vote share and seat share, the two nonpartisan states (a commission in AZ, a court in TX), had a D +4.4 result. And these are two red states.

This is why independent commissions or district court decisions for drawing districts are so vital, especially for Democrats.

 

Indeed. But if the cons can't gerrymander their way to victory, they are toast in today's demographic landscape.

 

Anything is a better source than Mother Jones.

 

Of course both sides do it. They'd be fools not to. I just don't like the practice.

 

No, I googled for a better, more mainstream source for recent gerrymandering activity, didn't find one. I'd be glad to see another link. MJ is only reporting election results for the most gerrymandered states, so not sure how they could be biased.

And to Flintc, while it's true some states like IL have done same (it was probably easy given their demographic), It's not at all apparent to me the Dems have a similar on-going effort afoot. Over the years I've heard republicans openly brag about controlling the state houses, with gerrymandering is the plum in that pie, as most people are aware.

Also, why is it independent redistricting commissions and federal court decisions are so vehemently opposed by GOP states like AZ and TX? Coincidence?

This issue goes straight to the heart of the democratic process. Today's Right is by default opposed to minorities and liberals having more clout at the ballot box - after all they are pro-big business/multinationals, against tougher regulations on those corporations, and rally for 'free trade' incessantly, which is a proxy for globalization and thus the subjugation of the labor market.

 

It is a bad argument. And you will note that tu quoque arguments are standard consevative responses when they are called out (even if the assertion is false).

What has changed in the last five years, is that these decisions are no longer just being left up to state legislatures on a local level.

The GOP's gerrymandering efffort was run on a national basis, using voting pattern consultants and statistical analysis to construct precinct maps for states to adopt.

This is precisedly why the GOP gained control of Congress in 2012, despite the fact that significantly more voters pulled the Democratic lever.

The GOP could not win these elections on their own. So they rewrote the map and made the US Congress into a body that does not represent the country as a whole.

 

Much like BSNBC, Mother Jones is so biased in favor of the Democrats that I will not listen to them.

Democrats gerrymander every time they get the opportunity.

 

Since the GOP took control of Congress dispite the fact that Democratic candidates got significantly more votes than Republican ones, perhaps you can tell us!''

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...te-republicans-which-means-basically-nothing/

Republicans win Senate seats in states with tiny populations and leverage that influence over the majority.

Similarly, in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, significant majorites of Democratic votes resulted in GOP victories that do not even come close to reflecting the electoral makeup of those states.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

 

Yeah, once the lines are redrawn, the party drawing the lines must be defeated by unrealistic margins to lose the majority in the legislature.

But bad as it is here, at least the lines MUST be redrawn every decade. In Britain, for many many decades on end, half a dozen people in a rural district where everyone else moved to the city could elect one representative, while a million city dwellers elected another. The impact on income distribution, housing, industry, agriculture and everything else was significant. At least in the US, every district must contain about the same number of voters.

 

Your use of the term 'BSNBC' takes a little shine off your moniker, btw.

If you have the time, can you find any information that contradicts this data my MJ? I know it's like proving a negative, but just curious.

And again, explain why red states fight against independent commissions. Is that a coincidence?

 

I can't explain something that didn't happen.

Republicans - 24,631,488 (51.7%)
Democrats - 20,875,493 (43.8%)

 

Both sides have been doing this for decades. Districts should be done in a grid pattern adjusted for size because of population.

 

Also, efforts in both Alabama and Virginia by GOP-led legislatures been stymied by this SCOTUS decision.

Simply by observing which states' efforts are being affected by the SCOTUS AZ decision, it's obvious which party want's to gerrymander it's way to permanent control of the US Congress..

 

`
Here we go again.....Those maps prove: Nothing. If you were to go in front of a judge and your only proof of gerrymandering was those maps, he'd throw the case out of court. You need to read up on some gerrymandering cases such as;

Shaw v. Reno

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Wright v. Rockefeller​

...to understand the preponderance of evidence needed to prove a case of gerrymandering.

 

Both sides have, but the republicans have and have had vigorous gerrymandering efforts afoot since 2010. Probably a Priebus or Rove's strategy

 

There is no better accolade to the GOP's success in gerrymandering in state after state.

How else could Congressional Republicans come to control congress and earn their current 17% approval/73% disapproval with the American people?

​

 

That could very well be due to another SCOTUS decision in June of 2013, which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

More GOP smoke and mirrors, Mr Moderate.

 

Congress as a whole has horrible approval ratings.. Both sides use gerrymandering. If the USSC shuts this down its good for all of us.. Of course you do not want to discuss that instead its the normal partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

Now that is funny.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Democrats cannot fathom the idea that people do not enthusiastically flock to them, so they must come up with excuses for all of their electoral defeats.

 

No surprise here that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts dissented, but this is a HUGE blow to the GOP's gerrymandering craze, a full-blown effort to strip citizens of their right to representation under the Constitution and send their own lackeys to DC instead of those chosen by the elecorate.


The GOP is accused of gerrymandering in an effort to dilute the Hispanic vote. First of all, felons cannot vote, and the last time I checked crossing international boundaries without the proper papers is a felony. So, until they change the constitution to allow for the free flow of people (God forbid), which they haven't done yet, Hispanics are not allowed to vote due to the fact that they are felons. If I can't vote because I told the school yard bully I was going to kick his arse if he didn't stop harassing my son, then Hispanics can't vote, and this whole thread is ridiculous.

 

You sure don't sound very 'moderate' to me, CJ. I think I can hear an AM talk radio station in the background.

I have a lot more faith in MJ being objective than in your political moderation.