let's assume that efforts to change the electoral college vote distribution succeeds in VA,PA & MI

[srican69]

Can the process be reversed in the courts - or does it have to fought at the ballot box in those states?


Pukes are acting like cornered ANIMALS .. and cornered animals are outright dangerous.

[wryter2000]

1. Kick

I'd like to know, too. Maybe it's different state-by-state.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

3. The constitution leaves the design of the electoral college up to each state. n/t

[BlueStreak]

4. States are subject to the Voting Rights Act

I believe there could be an argument that these Gerrymandering tricks violate the Voting Rights Act.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

6. That might work...

Of course, Dems have benefitted from doing their own gerrymandering when they were in control...so it becomes another issue like the freakin' filibuster.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

7. Gerrymandering pertains to the districts,

the electoral college is a separate issue.

[srican69]

8. I think the EC should be scrapped - it violates the one person one vote expectation

[Sekhmets Daughter]

14. I have never understood the purpose of the EC...

The framers thought it would protect small states, but when you consider how electors are allocated, I don't see how. It has served no purpose since the early 19th century. It takes a constitutional amendment to scrap the EC, I don't see states ratifying it, do you? Its another one of those issues like gerrymandering and the filibuster...both parties have used and abused them when given the opportunity so neither party wants to end them.

[BlueStreak]

10. That is the point. The new ALEC effort makes Gerrymandering an EC issue

And that might be enough to challenge it under the Voting Rights Act.

With Gerrymandering 1.0, the districts are grossly distorted, but three is a "fair" election within that distorted district. The Representative who gets the most votes represents that district, such as it is.

What ALEC is pushing is a system where the Electoral College electors will we assigned based on the district results. You cannot do that exactly because each state gets two more electors than they have Congressional districts. Nonetheless, if the practical result is that a majority of voters cast their votes for Candidate A and the majority of EC electors go to Candidate B, this could be a voting Rights Act issue.

The issue is disenfranchisement. The ALEC law is no different than if a state said, "Henceforth, Democrats shall have only a 3/4 vote."

[Sekhmets Daughter]

13. I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

Yes, gerrymandering will now effect the electoral college process if the GOP machine changes the allotment of electoral votes in certain 'swing' states. However, the right of a state to determine how it will award its votes is one awarded by the constitution. Maine and Nebraska already use a proportional system. Can you honestly see this SCOTUS saying the constitution is wrong? The Voting Rights Act is currently under attack and if I remember correctly, the courts will hear arguments as to whether some states must still have their redistricting efforts reviewed by the DOJ. I wish I were confident the court will rule Yes...but I think that's a dim hope.

The entire electoral college needs to be abolished...but that would take a constitutional amendment and I doubt it would be ratified in our present climate.

[BlueStreak]

19. No rights are unlimited

States do not have the right to say, for example, that votes for Democrats shall be counted at 3/4 of a vote and votes for Republicans shall be counted at 1-1/4 pf a vote each, and this is exactly the practical effect of the ALEC laws.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

23. That is your interpretation of the effect of the prospective changes....

It may not be the court's

[BlueStreak]

27. You are correct, madam.

My point is we need to get busy challenging these things. All I see right now is Beltway Democrats going to parties, wallowing in the security of cushy jobs for another 4 years.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

30. Well, we have arrived at consensus!

While we went by way of our asses to get to our elbows, I think you and I are in complete agreement.

[BlueStreak]

31. :) That's not as bad as you make it sound. :)

[LeftInTX]

25. Not if the distribution of EV does not reflect the voters

If a Dem wins a state by 52%, but receives only 37.5% of the EV of that state I think this would fall under the VRO. Even in blue states. The districts would have to be redistricted so that the EVs are distributed properly.

In the EV rigged scheme even if the Dem wins the popular vote state, he always wins much less than 50% of EV.

[wryter2000]

15. I assumed the OP meant state courts

I imagine state courts might have jurisdiction.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

16. So you think a state court is going to overturn a provision of the constitution....

and get away with it? Do you think any ruling a state court would make on this issue would not end up in an appeals court?

[BlueStreak]

20. It would be a Federal court if it is brought on the basis of the Voting Rights Act.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

2. No...

The constitution specifically gives states the right to design their own electoral process.

I think this is a very dangerous moment for the Democrats and Democracy because of Gerrymandering...which is not a constitutional issue, but a political issue. It appears to me, the most effective way to fight this is to sue to end gerrymandering.

[BlueStreak]

5. Absolutely. There have been successful suits in the past.

But we need an AG that will go after this stuff.

I can't recall a weaker AG that whats-his-name.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

12. Please give me an example of

a challenge to the allotment of electoral votes.... All I could find was a court case regarding "Faithless" electors.

[legaleagle_45]

21. Gerrymander

Successful attacks have been made on gerrymandering, but only when their is a prohibited discriminatory purpose, such as diluting the vote of racial minorities. Diluting the power of opposing political parties is not a "prohibited discriminatory purpose" and is a time honored tradition in our political process dating back to the very beginning of our nation.

The terminology "gerrymander" is traced to Elbridge Gerry, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Gerry also signed of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and was vice president of the US under Madison. As governor of Massachusetts in 1810 he presided over a legislature which drew electoral lines for districts which had odd shapes and were dictated by politics. The shapes were mocked in a political cartoon of the day that had a picture of district that looked like a salamander and had the caption "Gerrymander". The term has stuck and been employed to describe it ever since.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. Please...I am talking bout the way states allot their electoral votes...

My entire thesis is that the way to fight that is to fight gerrymandering....

[BlueStreak]

22. Search "court overturns redistricting"

You will find hundreds of thousands of hits and dozens of successful challenges.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

26. I am not talking about redistricting....I am talking about the way states allot their electorl votes

[BlueStreak]

29. Well, obviously there are no court challenges to the new ALEC laws because

none of those bills have passed into law yet. But they will and it sickens me to hear so many of the national Democrats act like there is nothing they can do, starting with this spineless AG we have.

[legaleagle_45]

9. Not prohibited by Constitution

Maine and Nebraska have had this for a very long time. An argument could be made about gerrymandering, but that would only go towards rectifying a discriminatory gerrymandering and will not eliminate the fact that some electoral votes will go to a Republican in states which otherwise had a majority vote for a Democrat.

Another approach would be to undermine the electoral college itself by supporting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact... a description of which is found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It insures that the person who wins the popular vote in the entire US will win the presidency.

[srican69]

11. so there is hope .. I did not know about the NPVIC .. thanks for educating me

[BlueStreak]

24. Yes, I think this is exactly right.

There is nothing that prevents a state from having proportional distribution of the electoral votes. But it has to be seen as fundamentally fair by the courts. If there is a finding that the system is rigged against the majority, states do not have that right and courts can intervene.

And fortunately, ALEC has had to pursue a 2-step process. Step 1: they Gerrymander the Congressional districts. Step 2: they apply these Gerrymandered districts to the Presidential selection.

The key point is that there is a time gap between step 1 and step 2, specifically 4 years. We already have a real-world body of evidence that the districts are drawn unfairly. We already have the evidence that we won by over a million votes yet are under-represented in the House by 16 seats. A court challenge does not have to argue a theoretical bias. The evidence is all right there.

That challenge might not be successful in states like Virginia that have not yet held an election under the new districts. But it should have a good chance in any state that recently did a redistricting plan that resulted in the minority winning more Congressional seats.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. There's really much ado about nothing here

California already has an apportionment statute...that can only go into effect if all the other states change. That's key, because it's what gets around both the Voting Rights Act issues and the equal protection issues. Oh, what about Maine and Nebraska! What about the states having the right to decide, Constitutionally! Whatever. Ultimately, a court will look at whether specific voters in the state are being disenfranchised - which does not appear to happen in Maine and Nebraska (there's a very simple test here: has a statewide majority in either state ever produced a upside down electoral apportioning? No? No.) - or whether there's a general (federal level) violation of the equal protection clause.

This is nothing more than the Dem activists trying to whip up state level support for 2014. There will not be district-based EC apportioning in 2016 or any other year, unless it is nationally instituted (in every state). But by all means, get your FEAR on. If that's what it takes to get the voters out at the state level in 2014, I'm all for this silly set of ideas.