Why isn't gerrymandering illegal

[Tribetime]

I mean that if you pay taxes to a state that you should be represented fairly. I don't see for instance Ohio who might be 55 to 45 in the Republican favor can have 12 or 13 of the 15 congressional seats. I just don't understand how this is not illegal basically that means that my vote does not count

[TheBlackAdder]

1. About 10 years ago, Dems & Reps in NJ got together and set up each district as safe zones.

Last edited Sat Dec 11, 2021, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

.

They did this to save money on campaigns, which permanently ensures a candidate's job by removing primary challengers for their parties elections.


Before that, it was more balanced, but there were fierce and expensive campaigns to win offices.


Correction: It was 10 years ago to fend off primary challengers and prevent expensive primaries that diverted cash from the general elections.

.

[zaj]

2. Link?

[TheBlackAdder]

4. Link here. It walk talked on the TV and Radio for a couple of years, esp. NJ1015.com

.

Here's one link. It was actually 10 years ago.

https://www.nj.com/times-opinion/2012/01/opinion_nj_congressional_redis.html

Just a snippet of the article

First, the commission selected the best way to pare 13 districts down to 12 by putting a Republican and a Democratic incumbent in the same district, rather than two incumbents of the same party, thereby letting voters in the general election decide which incumbent returns to Congress. Putting two incumbents from the same party in one district would force a primary contest, typically a low-turnout election involving only voters from one party, which certainly is not as fair.
.
.
.
With those sensible changes in district lines, most observers agree that the districts are even less competitive than those of 10 years ago. One party now dominates, so incumbents appear to be assured of little competition from a challenger. Therefore, there will be a limited amount of campaigning to connect with voters — but still lots of money being raised to fend off primary challengers. The bright side is that seniority in Congress rewards long-term incumbency with a leadership role.

This incumbent-safe arrangement means there is little potential for new people — specifically women — to run and be successful. Note that New Jersey has not had a woman in its congressional delegation since Marge Roukema, from Bergen County, retired in 2002.

.

[zaj]

3. "Democrats" aren't a protected class, so they use "race" as a proxy.

But the Voting Rights Act was gutted by the USSC.

[ymetca]

5. Yeah, Oklahoma

is the perfect microcosm of it, currently carving up an increasingly Democratic district into a couple districts absolutely ensuring Republican representatives in the next electoral cycle. A real "two-fer"!

So, all these so-called "reliably red" States are a gerrymandered mess, controlled by well-healed plutocrats who think they really own the place. And despite an occasional Democratic Governor getting past the roadblocks, he or she can never get much of anything transformative accomplished.

Just like America.

The game is rigged. Just not in the way they want us to think it is.

[iemanja]

6. Scotus has ruled it is legal

unless explicitly racist in intention. That intention is very hard to prove.

[uponit7771]

7. American supreme Court seems to error on the side of less democracy when it comes to voting

[iemanja]

8. Yes, and I'm afraid we'll see that confirmed

as these new GOP anti-democracy laws are challenged.

[Zeitghost]

15. You have to remember

The Constitution doesn't even mandate a general Presidential election. State legislatures could assign electors by drawing names from a hat and it would be legal. States are given almost complete power to run any elections as they choose.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. Yes, but what about explicitly anti-democratic and explicitly intended to favour one party?

Personally think that should be enough to make it unconstitutional as hell.

[iemanja]

13. They have said that is okay

It sucks. I know.

[iemanja]

17. Here is a news story about the ruling.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court

[Alexander Of Assyria]

18. Thank you. Well, that's just wrong thinking by the majority. Political thinking. Not their job.

But as it is the legislative branch can do something on a federal level, essentially the majority punted to the states. Legislative action needed. But the feds can act as well as states.

So maybe a filibuster carve out is the only solution? Mini carve out to ban the vile practise.

Ban the practise, independent commissions of experts to draw the maps, as intended surely in a free and democratic republic, equal representation according to one person one vote.

[brooklynite]

9. Define represented "fairly"

You are represented. Nothing in the Constitution requires you be represented by the candidate you voted for.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. One person one vote, equal representation in legislative body based on population

in a logically geographic perimeter….off the top of my head.

Should not be hard, can find definitions of what is fair and defined in many laws.

[brooklynite]

14. "In a logically geographic perimeter"....there's the rub

Nothing in the Constitution requires that.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

19. No, but nothing bans it either. So legislatures can do, no problem, including the federal level.

Or rather, the problem is only the fascists.

[Tribetime]

28. It seems all my post oh nevermind I fixed it

[Zeitghost]

12. Because both sides do it.

Here in CA we have gerrymandered Republicans completely out of power with veto proof majorities in the State legislature and have been taking an additional 5-10 Congressional seats they should have won every two years.

[MichMan]

16. The Voting Rights Act requires it to some extent

To establish Minority-Majority districts

[Jacson6]

20. Becuase the Founding Fathers decide it was OK.

[Stuart G]

25. The "Founding Fathers" did not have a clue...says Stu

..At that time..there was limited voting. State legislatures decided Senate Races...Also, women did not have the
...Right To Vote....

The "Founding Fathers" were concerned with setting up a country in the 1790s. They did not have voting rights
or gerrymandering in the periscope. Their only idea was to establish a country that would persist & grow for
a while...

........No idea that that country would become greater than England was in the 1790s. It was a world totally
different from today. NO RADIO/ NO TV/ NO PUBLIC EDUCATION AS WE KNOW, NO MEDICARE, NO CARS, ONLY HORSES, MANY PEOPLE COULD NOT READ. etc.etc.etc.etc.

[Progressive Jones]

27. They also bought and sold humans. They also settled arguments by duel.

A lot of praise is heaped upon the so-called "Founding Fathers", as if they possessed some magical
minds and moral strength like no one else. Great bunch of guys, I suppose, but virtually cave dwellers when compared to today's society.

[edhopper]

21. Chief Justice

John Roberts said it was okay.

[AJT]

22. Elections and election laws are decided state by state. That is in the constitution.

[localroger]

23. Even if as others have noted it wasn't explicitly permitted...

...and you did want to ban gerrymandering, defining it in a legally precise way so that you could take action against offenders would be difficult. There are a number of different ways to do a gerrymander, some more subtle than others. It's one of those things where the harder you work to pin it down, the more creative people are going to be trying to get around the restrictions.

[smirkymonkey]

24. +1000

[thatdemguy]

26. Be careful what you ask for

Maryland has gerrymandered the state to only have one r, and 7 D's. the state is roughly 60/40 actual voting history.

[Tribetime]

29. It shouldn't favor one party or another every voter vote must be equally represented

Oh and by the way at the present time it strongly favors Republicans and if they win the midterms it's pretty much over at that point it won't matter ever again