Do we need a constitutional amendment to end gerrymandering?

[MoonRiver]

Because unless and until that corrupt system is gone, the Thugs will be able to continue their disgusting shenanigans.

[shenmue]

1. Yes we do

Excellent idea.

[Tidy Cat]

2. Yeah, but good luck getting that to happen.

[elleng]

13. Right. Its inherently a state issue,

and most of us are probably not interested in fighting another civil war about it.

[Recursion]

3. We need to end House districts. They aren't even in the Constitution.

The House delegation should be elected statewide with a preferential voting scheme.

This doesn't even require a constitutional amendment, because districts are mentioned nowhere.

[MoonRiver]

5. Well, how do we go about making that happen?

[Recursion]

6. And there's the problem. Districting is controlled entirely by state legislatures

The Constitution leaves it basically entirely to their discretion.

[MoonRiver]

12. Ok, so that is what needs amending.

[Tidy Cat]

15. As I said, good luck with that.

You would need 3/4 of the states to agree to a change in the Constitution, think that's going to happen?

[treestar]

60. Then start a movement in each state

To have at large districts. That might work.

[kelliekat44]

64. That is why I have been screaming for folks to get out and vote in state and local elections.

If we (Dems) put as much effort into state and local elections as we do national presidential elections we could turn this BS around in one election cycle.

[Drunken Irishman]

36. I'd be fine with just doing away with the House...

Have just the United States Senate and the White House.

It's insane that someone could theoretically receive less than 300,000 votes and have the power to entirely shut down the government. That's roughly what John Boehner won in his unopposed campaign in 2012.

To contrast, Obama won 65,915,796 votes in his election.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Your understanding of our goverment is badly in error.

Boehner has the power that he does because he has the backing of the Republican Party. In 2012 they won more seats than we did. How many votes Obama got is irrelevant.

[mythology]

48. There is an interesting underlying point there though

House Democratic candidates received 1.4 million more votes overall than Republican candidates. And it's not just that they ran up the votes in New York and California. Democrats won more votes in Pennsylvania and Ohio, but are distinct minorities in the House delegation for those states.

Yes Democrats have done some similar things in states like Illinois and Maryland, but not nearly as often nor as effectively.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. See my post # 51. N/T

[Drunken Irishman]

50. They won more seats. They didn't win more votes.

The point still stands. A minority in this country is holding our economy hostage. They have more power right now than the President of the United States ... even though they received less votes overall than he did.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. We are not a parliamentary system.

In the United Nations, each country gets one vote. China and India get the same as Holland and Switzerland.

We are the United States, founded as an assembly of 13 different countries. So our representation is not strictly according to the population of each state, but has a shading towards the less populous states.

The change that you desire would require a complete rewrite of the Constitution.

[Drunken Irishman]

58. And?

People talk of rewriting the Constitution all the time - from abandoning the electoral college to adding term limits. Wouldn't be the first time we did that.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. We have made amendment, never a rewrite.

If you think you can get the 13 smallest states to agree to a parlimentary system, go for it.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. I never said it would happen. Doesn't mean it shouldn't, tho.

The House of Representatives is a joke. It's a mockery of government. It showcases all that is wrong with the political system.

[Blaukraut]

4. The best solution would be proportionally appointed reps

Each state's Dem and Rep party would appoint representatives according to vote count. Number of total reps would depend on state's population, just as does now. This would of course mean that some states, like MA, would lose some Dem reps, but overall it would be a more fair representation of the popular vote.

[Recursion]

9. I like the "party slate" idea

I also like a preferential system where, say, if your state has 7 reps, you get 7 votes. You can vote all 7 for one person, or split them among people you like.

[brooklynite]

17. ...but then people get upset about "the Party Bosses"...

...in a electoral slate model, individuals don't get to run on their own; the Party decides who it's candidates are and in what order they'll win seats.

[Recursion]

49. And about 95% of the world's democracies seem fine with the idea (nt)

[NuclearDem]

26. Proportional is the way to go.

But have the votes pooled from across the country, not statewide.

We really do the election system backwards--party picks a messenger first, then people decide between messengers. It lends itself to voting more for personality than policy. It should be vote for ideas first, then have the parties pick who will fill the seats they won afterwards.

[Freddie]

7. 100% needed but how?

I think statewide at-large elections of congress is not allowed in the Constitution, as they are supposed to represent the local issues of the region. There has to be a way to mathematically divide the state into regions with equal numbers of people.

[Recursion]

11. Districts are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution

If a state legislature wants to make all House seats at large, that's within their power. But, anything we do will require controlling state houses.

[pinto]

30. The apportionment of Representatives per State is, though.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

[Savannahmann]

8. OK, but how do we enforce it?

Some states will be easy, others will be hard. The districts are drawn to encompass roughly equal numbers of people. Now, do we decide that each district will be a square? OK, but then you're left with a game of Tetris that is impossible to win. Imagine New York City for example, a dozen little squares all being drawn over the city with each having roughly equal numbers of people? Impossible.

We could say that each county get's a congressman, which works out fine, if the number of counties and the number of representatives is equal. Then again, you'll have counties with a relatively small number of people with equal power as all of New York County. Another impossible solution.

Gerrymandering is something that will always go on. We want to win the State Houses so we can draw the map next time, so it's in our favor. The Republicans want to keep control for the same reason.

But, there is no way to ever end it in reality.

[jeff47]

23. There's a variety of ways

If you want to do it mathematically, you could probably put a limit on the ratio of the area to the perimeter.

A far easier way is to make it non-partisan. The body that sets the districts is either non-partisan, or has equal representation from both parties. Which is what has been done in several sates.

[PADemD]

37. Representation by County

Would this work?

Let each state county have a Congressional representative whose vote would reflect the population size of the county.

Article I Section II Clause 3 states:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative

A representative's vote could be weighted by population size. A minimum of 30,000 could count as 1 congressional vote. A county population of 120,000 could have either four representatives with one vote or one representative with 4 votes. A county of less than 30,000 could be combined with another county or counties.

Los Angeles County has the largest population of 9,818,605. They could have 310 representatives with 1 vote or one representative with 310 votes. Each vote would have to represent 30,000 people.

Each state could decide how many representatives per larger county or smaller counties per representative, but a county could not be gerrymandered by party registration.

[Savannahmann]

40. First the Constitutional issue.

The House of Representatives fixed their number at 435 with a law in 1929, in accordance with the Constitution. Otherwise, we would have more than ten thousand representatives in the House. Here's the supreme court decision from 1932.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=287&invol=1

So the number is fixed by the law IAW the Constitution at 435. Now, each state apportions those representatives to manage an equal (as possible) number of people. But no state may have fewer than one, again IAW the Constitution.

If we went off of counties, deciding that each county has an equal vote, ignoring the population. Then we would have more than 3,000 representatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States

Both numbers seem a little unwieldy to me. The idea of having as more Representatives than most towns have populations is laughable. We would have to build a domed stadium to hold sessions of Congress. Or enjoy the sight of the politicians standing in the rain, or sitting in the snow/sleet while they debate our future.

We've got 435, and that number is manageable, if only just. So we have to come up with a way to take back the State Houses and be able to draw the maps in our favor.

[Cleita]

10. Yes, yes yes.

In my govt. classes back in the Jurassic period or commonly known as the Truman administration, we were taught that gerrymandering along with ballot stuffing was a corrupt election practice and should have been criminalized.

[jberryhill]

14. There already is one - it's called the 14th Amendment

Challenges to districting schemes fall under the 14th, e.g. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).

If you want to understand the Constitutional dimensions of gerrymandering, the best starting point is Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno

[JEFF9K]

16. Good idea. With computerization, gerrymandering effects are worse than ever.

[MadrasT]

18. Somebody has to do something.

This hot mess is my district, as it was just redrawn and approved in 2011.

[jberryhill]

28. Lol...

Yeah, because Marcus Hook is JUST LIKE Berks County. Geez.

[MadrasT]

55. Racking my brains to come up with something a constituent in Upper Darby

and a constituent in Paradise have in common and I got...

...nothing.

There are people in Upper Darby who have never even seen a cow in real life, for Pete's sake. I work with them and I almost fell over.

Me: "What do you MEAN you have never seen a cow???"

Them: "Well not except for on a carton of milk."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Yes, but you have no change of getting one.

So hold your nose and take several more doses of your nice inherently-Republican-biased medicine, because there's nothing to be done about it

[surrealAmerican]

20. This would need to pass in the very state legislatures that ...

... are dominated by one party because of gerrymandering, that's if it somehow gets through our gerrymandered House of Representatives first. It'll be a long time before that happens.

It would be a good thing, but I don't see any way of achieving it.

[Blanks]

21. I don't believe it's necessary.

Demographics change in neighborhoods and I don't believe that just because an area is republican today - that it will be republican in 2 years or 4 years or 6 years.

I think that the advantage that it gives can't be guaranteed for very long, and it only works if economic conditions in that area favor the republicans.

I don't think it's the big issue of our time. In fact I expect to see it bite the republicans in the ass because of shifting demographics.

[starroute]

22. "One man, one vote" was enforced by Supreme Court decision

Gerrymandering is a different situation on one level, because you could argue that it doesn't technically violate the 14th Amendment requirement for equal protection of the law. But if someone comes up with a plausible case for why it does, the issue could be resolved through the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote#Warren_Court_decisions

In various reapportionment cases decided by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, notably Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and Baker v. Carr, the court ruled that districts for the United States House of Representatives and for the legislative districts of both houses of state legislatures had to contain roughly equal populations. The U.S. Senate was not affected by these rulings, as its makeup was explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. The cases concerning malapportionment ended the pattern of area-based representation in the U.S. House and state legislatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that reapportionment of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, home to the state's largest city of Birmingham, had challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided that there be at least one representative per county and as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Ratio variances as great as 14 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 14 times the number of voters in another).

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court went further in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties were often drastically underrepresented.

[dsc]

24. gerrymandering is a problem but not the only one

Democrats tend to live in more densely Democratic areas than Republicans tend to live in densely Republican areas. Thus even without gerrymandering we would be between slightly and somewhat under represented in the House. Gerrymandering surely makes that tendency far worse but it builds on a trend it doesn't create a trend.

[Old Navy]

25. No. We need to shoot every single Republicans who *THINKS* gerrymandering is a wonderful idea.

[dkf]

27. Isn't gerrymandering a positive for minority representation?

I thought I had heard that in the past.

[Cleita]

29. If you like being held hostage by the minority, which

is the situation we have in Congress now, then sure. It's fine for the minority to be represented but it works much better in parliamentary systems than ours. Any suggestions about minorities having a voice by unequal representation comes out of right wing think tanks and the only minority they are interested in is theirs. You won't see African Americans or Hispanics benefitting from gerrymandering.

[dkf]

31. What does the CBC say?

Are they okay with getting rid of it?

[Cleita]

34. I don't know. I suspect they are fine with it.

We got rid of it in California and for a change in decades, we have a functional state government that is getting business done.

[pinto]

33. No, yet I feel we need an independent oversight group to handle apportionment of Representatives.

On a state by state basis. Here's the larger standard -

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Obviously this has been changed since the enactment of the original Constitution.)

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

[Mr.Bill]

35. Politicians will never write a law

that they aren't exempt from or can't weasel their way around.

[JVS]

38. It wouldn't work. There is no clear cut line on what is and what isn't gerrymandering.

Also, there would be a lot of debate even within the democratic party when it comes to the fate majority-minority-districts. These are congressional districts that are designed to have a majority of voters within the district be from a minority. They have a mixed effect, on one hand without these districts there would be a lot fewer minorities in the house. On the other hand, one of the side effects of creating a majority-minority-district within a state is that other districts within the state have fewer democrats and republicans get elected in them.

[RB TexLa]

39. No. It's a political process and "gerrymandering" is very subjective

[grasswire]

41. opening a constitutional convention would be very dangerous.

Anything could happen.

[Whiskeytide]

42. Maybe - but shouldn't we gerrymander it back first?

... just a thought.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Just a reminder, Democrats have gerrymandered too.

Don't think that only Republicans do it. It has been around for about 200 years and both sides do it.

[MoonRiver]

45. I don't think it is right for either party to do it.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Agreed, but in your OP you blamed only the Republicans. N/T

[MoonRiver]

47. That's the big issue right now.

But if the system were somehow corrected, obviously both parties would be impacted.

[cprise]

53. K&R

This should be top priority now!

[davidpdx]

54. I don't know

I'm more concentrated on getting a constitutional amendment on campaign finance.

[Egalitarian Thug]

56. We'd need 50 state battles as well. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

57. You Beat Them At Their Own Game...On The State & Local Level...

...the Democrats have been piss pour over the past 50 years in building up the party's grassroots; especially at the lowest levels. The reason we have the teabaggers infesting our government is from the rushpublican's long term objective to build from the bottom up. They stacked school boards then county boards and state legislatures and now onto the national level. The gerrymandering is done on the state level and can be redone that way...it takes building up Democratic parties that can win those low level elections; especially in red and purple states.

For over 40 years the Democrats had control of the House and let it slip away. Time to win it back and also clean house on the state level of the teabaggers who are doing tremendous damage...

[spanone]

61. k&r...it's a blatant manipulation of voters will.

[onenote]

62. If we could get such an amendment ratified we wouldn't need such an amendment

Seems kinda obvious.

[gopiscrap]

63. I would love if we could do it.

[kentauros]

65. How about a constitutional amendment to end Republicans?

That would solve a lot more.

[ecstatic]

66. the entire thing desperately needs an overhaul

We've identified several parts that are not relevant to the 21st century. And yes, that also includes the 2nd Amendment!

[struggle4progress]

67. I can't imagine how such an amendment could be worded, without becoming meaningless pablum

IMO we're better off pushing more states to establish bipartisan redistricting commissions with a set of reasonable guidelines (to the extent feasible, districts should be compact and connected, should respect political boundaries, should respect city/county precincts, should not subdivide neighborhoods, should not dilute minority voting strengths, and should allow for election of officials in proportion approximating party strengths), recognizing that the such guidelines are inherently inconsistent so that balanced judgement will always be required

[lonestarnot]

68. Let's have one.

[kiranon]

69. Set up federal control over election to federal offices. The States can

legislate rules for State offices. Have Congressional districts drawn by a nonpartisan body.