This is the case that will definitively prove, whether or not rulings by the current, Conservative- dominated Supreme Court, should retain even a shred of public credence. But I'll fill you in on some of the background, at the other side of my SNIP. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...over-north-carolina-electoral-map-2022-06-30/ [Snip] WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Republican-backed appeal that taking up a North Carolina case that could have broad implications for the 2024 elections and beyond... The justices took up the appeal by Republican state lawmakers of a February decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map delineating the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts approved last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature. The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the boundaries for the districts were drawn by the legislature in a manner that boosted the electoral chances of Republicans at the expense of Democrats. It rejected Republican arguments seeking to shield legislature-drawn maps from legal attack in state courts... In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican request to put on hold the lower court rulings that adopted the court-drawn map, a decision seen as boosting Democratic hopes of retaining their slim House majority in the November midterm elections. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch DISSENTED from that decision. The Republican lawmakers said the state court impermissibly imposed its own policy determination for how much partisanship can go into crafting congressional lines. They acknowledged that the case would have an impact beyond redistricting, extending to "the whole waterfront of voting issues, from absentee voting deadlines to witness requirements, voter ID to curbside voting." [End Snip] This case will be heard in the session, beginning in October, and we will receive the SCOTUS ruling, no later than June of 2023. Part of the Court history, which cannot be overlooked, in evaluating this case, is the 2019 ruling by the High Court, that Federal Courts do not have any jurisdiction over gerrymandering, by state legislatures. At the time, however, Chief Justice Roberts tried to soothe lovers of free and fair, democratic elections, by telling us that we should not worry, because the STATE COURTS, would be able to intercede, in the case of extreme gerrymandering, provided the State Constitution allows for it. So North Carolina's State Supreme Court, using its State Constitution as their basis, disqualified the Republican drawn map, due to its obvious, and significant, gerrymandering. But North Carolina's Republican legislature, refused to adhere to the State Court's ruling, by either redrawing their map, or by approving some non- partisan redrawing. So now, the Court will be hearing a case on the question of whether or not State Courts can do, exactly what the Chief Justice stated, 3 years ago, that they COULD do. Just to make sure, no one missed the headline: NC's redrawn districts, were openly gerrymandered. The legislature is not even contending that the map isn't a product of partisanship. Their case, which failed in State Court, is that they are permitted, in their minds, to use some partisanship, in their redrawing of election maps. Before the NC State Court had gotten involved, a case came to the SCOTUS, over this issue, and the Supremes ruled that they could not, legally, stop any gerrymandering, because our Federal Constitution does not allow it; however, Chief Justice Roberts added that there was no reason for concern, because in such instances of partisan drawing of election maps, the STATE Courts, could step in. Now, the N.C. legislature's contention of the opposite-- that state courts cannot challenge the legislature, over its method of dividing the state's districts-- will go to Robert's Federal, Supreme Court, to essentially ask, "was what the Chief Justice said, when you all said that you were the wrong Court to look at this, true, or was it a load of bullcrap?"
To put it simply, either States Courts can rule on how districts are drawn, or they can't! There is no third option. THIS Supreme Court has stated that State Courts are the ones that decide if there is gerrymandering. If they rule in favor of Republicans, that would demonstrate that States can control districting ONLY when it favors Republicans.
Sorry, to harp so much on this, but the SCOTUS has already said, it's not their place, to decide disputes involving basically any rules the state legislature approves, relating to elections; this would seem to dim the prospects for the DOJ's prevailing, in challenging any of those rules, as civil rights cases, if the state legislature brings the case to the SCOTUS, as it is their right to do, in all disputes between the states and the federal government. And the Court had a majority for that ruling, before Amy Barrett came to the Court. If our current SCOTUS adds that, somehow, State courts cannot rule on the legislature's election activities, such as redistricting, even when they are in blatant violation of the State's constitution, then legislatures would not be held to any legal restrictions, or consequences, for whatsoever they do.
North Carolina's legislators are not denying that they are cheating; they are contending that their cheating is not beyond what they are entitled to. The rich irony, FYI, is that a Republican who has been so "holier than thou," on the issue, supposedly, of election fairness & integrity, would react to this instance of clear election malfeasance, with: doombug said: ↑ Hahaha! Dems are worried about election cheating? Oh the irony is rich! But read on.
Please show me any law which says that redistricting can’t be done around completely partisan lines? That law doesn’t exist. Do you know how I know? Because the democrats used it for DECADES and when I screamed about how utterly and ridiculously unfair it was, y’all gleefully pointed that fact out to me. It is completely legal for redistricting to be drawn in complete accordance with party representation. There is absolutely nothing in law which states that can’t be done. If there is. Source it. Y’all used partisan gerrymandering to your advantage for DECADES. Now you will suffer the consequences of your actions.
My original article, failed to mention that Kavanaugh had been part of the majority which took the federal govt. out of any role, with respect to gerrymandering (i.e., one way of rigging an election). Here is an article from when that ruling was handed down, discussing Brett K.'s role in it: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/7318...andering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court Kavanaugh changed the court's debate Prior to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote on this issue. He seemed open to limiting partisan redistricting if the court was presented with a "manageable standard." But with Kavanaugh on the court, the search for that standard is over. "Technology is both a threat and a promise," Kennedy has written in a prior case, noting that with the advent of computer technology, the temptation to leverage partisan advantage would "only grow" — unless constrained by the courts. That temptation was clear in North Carolina. Although voters in the state are split roughly equally between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican-controlled state legislature openly drew congressional district lines to maximize their partisan advantage. As Republican David Lewis, the chairman of the state legislature's redistricting committee, put it, "I propose we draw the maps to give an advantage to 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats, because I do not believe it is possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats." Republicans managed to both maximize their advantage and minimize Democratic power by drawing district lines to pack as many Democrats as possible into three districts, and then cracking other potentially Democratic districts in half or thirds, diluting the Democratic vote to create safe Republican districts. The League of Women Voters, one of the challengers in the case, pointed out that the GOP had even split predominantly Democratic Greensboro so that half of the dorms at historically black North Carolina A&T State University were put in one Republican district, and half in another. Adding another twist to the North Carolina case is the recent unearthing of hard drives belonging to Republican redistricting expert Dr. Thomas Hofeller, who drew the original 2016 map for the GOP. This month those challenging the redistricting map filed papers in the lower courts, alleging that Hofeller's own words on his hard drive demonstrate that North Carolina Republicans used deceptive and improper tactics in their redistricting efforts. In a 2016 case, the Supreme Court struck down the GOP redistricting map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Those maps were nonetheless used in the 2018 election because Republican lawmakers told the lower courts that they had not done any preparation to redraw the maps and would need considerable time to do so. The newly discovered Hofeller hard drive, however, contains amended Senate and House maps that were nearly complete more than a year before the 2018 elections, according to documents filed by the plaintiffs suing to overturn the maps. In addition, despite the prohibition on using racial data in redistricting, Dr. Hofeller included "the racial composition of the proposed districts for each and every iteration of his draft maps," according to the challengers. They argue that these files indicate that North Carolina Republicans misled the lower courts in order to continue using a map in 2018 that was unconstitutionally gerrymandered along racial lines. Republicans deny the charges, dismissing Hofeller's drafts as "play maps" done on personal time.
No one has yet identified who paid off his quarter mil credit card debt amongst other things. As for the case, lets see if they will uphold the constitution and it's protection of the citizenry, all of the citizenry.
Apparently, you have no problem with minority rule-- as long as it is the right minority, that is. It is a question of common sense, ShadowX. Hypothetically, if a Party with the support of only a minority of its state's citizens, can rig maps so that they still get the majority of seats, when they get fewer overall votes, and are not subject to any judicial oversight, well you essentially have the beginning of an authoritarian government. Tell me that, if it were the Democrats, in some purple state, doing this, to ensure that their legislature would stay Blue, forever onward, you would not be calling them out for it.
Oh I would be incensed. Do you know why I know? Because I’m from a state that was HEAVILY gerrymandered by democrats for over half a century. We had districts that looked like snakes. We had districts that were not connected. They were drawn around complete partisan lines in order to maximize the advantage for the democrats. We even had one district at one point that was a polka dot district that covered multiple sections of the state in little pockets that the democrats selected solely to give themselves a winning district. I had screamed about it for years and years about how absurdly unfair and wrong it was. I said it had to be illegal. But I was summarily informed that I was incorrect and try as I might I couldn’t find any legislation which said it was illegal. So we had to suffer for DECADES with unfair, highly gerrymandered districts. I literally spent years sending emails, letters and calling Republican representatives across the country telling them that once they have the advantage they have to re-gerrymander in their favor. The democrats didn’t care. They were FULLY aware of how partisan, unfair and disgustingly unrepresentative their gerrymandering was. But they didn’t give one tiny **** about that. Now that the tables have turned and the republicans are doing the EXACT same thing the democrats did yet not even remotely as unfair as what the democrats have done… y’all want to end the practice? Nah I don’t think so. How about 50 years worth of it in Republican favor and then IF the democrat party still exists, we can discuss ending it then.
Depending which way, the SCOTUS rules, this will either let the states gerrymander at will or it won’t. We’ve had in this last round of redistricting both Democratic and Republicans states take gerrymandering to new levels. Illinois, New Jersey, New York are just some of the Democratic gerrymandered states beyond reason while you had North Carolina, Ohio, Alabama are examples of Republican gerrymandering. Depending on which party controls the most state legislatures, this lawsuit if the SCOTUS rules in favor of it, could end up benefiting the Democrats more than the Republicans. It all depends on who controls the state legislatures after the 2030 census. This in my opinion is a be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Today we have 23 Republican trifectas, where the GOP has the governor and controls both the state legislatures, house and senate, we have 14 Democratic trifectas, the rest of the states have divided government. These numbers change constantly from election to election. There’s no guarantee the GOP will retain these trifectas or have complete control over redistricting in 2030. Just two years ago the numbers were 21 Republican trifectas vs 15 for the Democrats. 10 years earlier, there were 25 states that had divided government to 9 trifectas for the Republicans along with 16 for the democrats. A ruling in North Carolina’s favor could end up hurting the Republicans much more than the Democrats or vice versa. Time will tell. Stuff like this is done with knee jerk reaction for a short-term political gain with no thought of the long-term effects or the future. Ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s first use, precedence setting use of the nuclear option is a prime example. This could bite the GOP much harder after 2030 for whatever short term gain North Carolina receives today depending on the ruling.
I disagree that, as you suggest, the Democratic Party of today has not changed over the past decade, nor has the Republican Party. While you don't say that specifically, you definitely characterize both Parties as operating by the same, partisan rules, in all things. I am not saying, certainly, that partisanship does not exist, among Democrats. But VOTING RIGHTS is one area, in which the Democratic Party, at large, has had a fundamental shift. It would no longer be likely to occur, IMO, that the Democratic Party, as it will be, after the 2030 census, based on their current trajectory, would make anything like the current, Republican gerrymandered maps. It would be just too off-brand. Your citing of Harry Reid's changing of Senate rules, is an extremely poor analogy, and really a bogus example. As you, I assume, realize, the REASON that Senator nuked the filibuster, for the approval of non Supreme Court Justices, was not as a way to grab hold of more power, or protect Democratic majorities, in the future, as is the case with Republicans, in North Carolina. This response by Reid, was forced by the fact that the minority Party in the Senate was filibustering all of President Obama's nominations for federal Courts, while there existed a vast number of openings. Even after the nuclear option, the Dems had to leave many possible posts, still on the table, which were used for the prolific number of appointments, confirmed under Trump. Being clear-eyed is one thing but, if you will forgive my honest opinion, you sound a bit jaded, making it difficult for you to recognize the politics as usual, ever changing, even when they do. For a long time, for instance, Democrats have given lip service to giving proper consideration and respect, to women, yet one can point to many instances, when the Democrats have played by "Boys' Club" rules. But then Al Franken was essentially forced to resign, by Democratic Senators, because of some puerile hijinks, long in the past. Or, the time when you could find Pro- Life Democrats in Congress, has now all but disappeared. Voting Rights have become too core to the Party platform, for old time gerrymandering to be tolerated even by Democratic voters, as it has been, in the past. The Republican Party politicians, speaking broadly, have been throwing overboard their former principles, as far as our governmental system goes. So, I find the they're all the same, argument, about the two Parties, to be a sign of someone living in the past. Granted, just like you, I am predicting future actions, so I will not be surprised if you adopt an "I'll have to see it for myself, first," attitude. The problem is, if Republicans can get their way with this election cheating, the chances of Democrats ever getting that opportunity, to live up to their espoused principles, as the majority Party in Congress, become rather dimmer.
