# NC Federal House Districts unconstitutionally gerrymandered **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 10, 2018, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306 "2018-01-10T12:00:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/181 "2018-08-30T20:08:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In a theoretical sense, in our first past the post system, 55% of the vote could yield 100% of the seats, even in completely fair districts. For example, if each district was comprised of a distribution of people where Republicans got 55% in every district, they would earn 100% of the seats. Pretty unlikely, but the vote% to seat% disparity is not sufficient to conclude gerrymandering. The quotes by the line drawers is pretty conclusive though. Sure–but in a reasonably fair system (and here I’m not talking constitutional issues, I’m talking about what’s desirable in a republic, BRICKER), you’d expect the percentages of representatives to map roughly to the percentage of people who vote for that representative’s party. I know, I know, we vote for people, not party, or at least we should. But that’s not our reality now, and given the reality of party politics, I think what I said holds. We can look at extremes: if Republicans got 90% of the votes but 0% of representation due to some bizarre trick Democrats pulled, I think we’d all agree that that’s not a healthy way to run a republic. Where do we draw the line on what IS fair? Wherever it is, a situation like this–in which, if septimus’s math is right (and I’m too tired to make sense of it), Democrats receive about 1/3 of the representation you’d expect–is over the line. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/182 "2018-08-30T21:05:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Why on God’s Green Earth would you ask a rando poster on the Internet this question, when there is a series of court rulings that explain in detail why it’s unconstitutional? Are you trying to score points, or do you have some other purpose? I argue that the three-judge district court in Common Cause v Rucho and League of Women Voters v Rucho, consolidated, failed to correctly apply existing precedent, and the the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn their finding. I also argue that the question of gerrymandering (absent violation of a statute) is non-justicible, meaning that it’s a political question that the courts should not decide. This case got returned to the district court to be reconsidered in light of Gill v Whitford. Gill did not address the issue of justiciability, because it was resolved on other grounds. I am firmly convinced that had SCOTUS confronted the issue squarely, they would have – and will, when the case returns to them – decide thusly. But even absent that get-out-of-jail free card, I think there is a standing problem here. Standing generally means that the federal constitution requires that federal courts cannot provide remedies except to plaintiffs that have cognizeable injuries in fact. Quoting Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife: > [@](#): > > Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: first, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized… (internal citations omitted). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court… The plaintiffs here assert two theories: first, that they have a right to not be “packed,” into a district in which their preferred Democratic candidates will overwhelming win – the “wasted vote,” theory. This is complaint about the process, but NOT about an injury in fact. They have elected their favored candidate and any harm is not the sort of “particularized” injury that the courts can address. Secondly, they claim a generalized, state-wide injury resulting from districts in which they are unable to elect a Democrat. But this is what Gill discussed: > [@](#): > > Plaintiffs may not rely on ‘the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past.’ A citizen’s interest in the overall composition of the legislature is embodied in his right to vote for his representative. And the citizen’s abstract interest in policies adopted by the legislature on the facts here is a nonjusticiable “general interest common to all members of the public.” I am open to the theory that an individual plaintiff may have standing to claim an individual district has done him individualized, particularized harm. I’m not seeing that case made here, however. The Constitution explicitly does NOT prohibit the kind of gerrymandering that is done for political benefit, and we know this from the 2004 SCOTUS case Vieth v. Jubelirer: “…[a]s long as redistricting is done by a legislature, it should not be very difficult to prove that the likely political consequences of the reapportionment were intended…” (quoting Davis v. Bandemer). There is no real question that at some level, EVERY redistricting plan made by a legislature carries some element of political advantage. In Vieth, the plaintiffs proposed that the court adopt a “predominant interest,” test – sure, they said, we admit that there’s no getting away from political intrigue, but when the legislature’s _predominant intent_ was political advantage, that’s when courts must step in, to prevent the denial of proportional representation to proportionately-sized groups. But the Vieth decision rejected that invitation: > [@](#): > > …this standard rests upon the principle that groups (or at least political-action groups) have a right to proportional representation. But the Constitution contains no such principle. It guarantees equal protection of the law to persons, not equal representation in government to equivalently sized groups. That’s the settled law of the land. Now comes the district court, in a non-precendential option, and seeks to again craft a new standard that will allow courts to tweak district lines. They cannot do this, though, without rejecting the SCOTUS guidance laid out for standing in Lujan and districting in Vieth. I predict that the final result of this case will be the overturning of the current ruling. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/183 "2018-08-30T21:08:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > …where Republicans got 55% in every district, they would earn 100% of the seats. Pretty unlikely… I take a moment to salute your gift for understatement, bordering on genius. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/184 "2018-08-30T21:08:28Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Sure–but in a reasonably fair system (and here I’m not talking constitutional issues, I’m talking about what’s desirable in a republic, BRICKER), you’d expect the percentages of representatives to map roughly to the percentage of people who vote for that representative’s party. Taking no position on whether that’s actually what’s desirable in a democratic republic, the Supreme Court rejected that view in 2004: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > this standard rests upon the principle that groups (or at least political-action groups) have a right to proportional representation. But the Constitution contains no such principle. It guarantees equal protection of the law to persons, not equal representation in government to equivalently sized groups. It nowhere says that farmers or urban dwellers, Christian fundamentalists or Jews, Republicans or Democrats, must be accorded political strength proportionate to their numbers… > . > . > . > The Constitution also does not share appellants’ alarm at the asserted tendency of partisan gerrymandering to create more partisan representatives. Assuming that assertion to be true, the Constitution does not answer the question whether it is better for Democratic voters to have their State’s congressional delegation include 10 wishy-washy Democrats (because Democratic voters are “effectively” distributed so as to constitute bare majorities in many districts), or 5 hardcore Democrats (because Democratic voters are tightly packed in a few districts). Choosing the former “dilutes” the vote of the radical Democrat; choosing the latter does the same to the moderate. Neither Article I, §2, nor the Equal Protection Clause takes sides in this dispute. In other words, I _AM_ talking constitutional issues. I invite you to continue a discussion of what “should,” be, in your ideal world, without expecting me to weigh in on that thread of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/185 "2018-08-30T21:09:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I predict that the final result of this case will be the overturning of the current ruling. With any luck, this will happen after North Carolina has the first fair election since 2010, [because it may well be its last](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/the-courts-are-saving-democracy-in-north-carolina-for-now.html). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/186 "2018-08-30T21:51:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I argue that the three-judge district court in Common Cause v Rucho and League of Women Voters v Rucho, consolidated, failed to correctly apply existing precedent, and the the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn their finding… > > I predict that the final result of this case will be the overturning of the current ruling. (Post shortened in deference to our long-suffering hamsters…) And no legal scholars of any merit disagree with your assessment? This is the legal equivalent of the slam-dunk, then? And do you approve? One could read your analysis as regretful, this is wrong, it is unjust for legislators to vote themselves power above and beyond the will of the voter. But alas! there is no option, shucks, darn it. Reason I ask, you were so fervent and fierce in your defense of the vote when it comes to voter ID, yet accept this sort of corrupt gamesmanship without any problem. To all appearances, you endorse it. To be ruthlessly fair, you _have_ offered solutions, all we need to do is concentrate whatever power we are permitted to keep (thanks for that, by the way, damn white of you…) and overwhelm the opposition, then pass Constitutional amendments. A daunting prospect. I would be better assured of your sincerity if you weren’t chuckling. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/187 "2018-08-30T22:47:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That might increase Democratic wins. > > Lucky break, eh? The 14th amendment helped the radical Republicans. Lucky break, eh? Or maybe it was the right thing to do? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/188 "2018-08-30T22:59:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The 14th amendment helped the radical Republicans. Lucky break, eh? Or maybe it was the right thing to do? Everyone claims they’re doing the right thing. Shockingly, there is no universal agreement on what “the right thing,” is. But we do have an agreement, nearly universal except for disgruntled liberals, about how to pass laws, and that’s our substitute. Now, if you’d like to switch to a system in which we simply do the right thing, and forget all the laws, and you’re willing to grant me the sole power to decide what the right thing is, then I humbly accept. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/189 "2018-08-30T23:08:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Everyone claims they’re doing the right thing. > > Shockingly, there is no universal agreement on what “the right thing,” is. > > But we do have an agreement, nearly universal except for disgruntled liberals, about how to pass laws, and that’s our substitute. > > Now, if you’d like to switch to a system in which we simply do the right thing, and forget all the laws, and you’re willing to grant me the sole power to decide what the right thing is, then I humbly accept. As part of the agreement on how to pass laws, there is also a part on how to challenge laws, that are thought by the citizenry harmed by those laws to be unjust. Why do you insist that only the part about passing laws is legitimate, and not the part on challenging laws? Is it only disgruntled liberals, or is it anyone who does not feel as though the laws passed by duly elected congress persons fulfill their obligations under the constitution, the laws, and yes, fairness? If it were only liberals, then we would not have cases like Heller, Trinity Lutheran Church, or Citizen’s United, turning over laws that were passed using “the agreement.” Right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/190 "2018-08-30T23:14:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Everyone claims they’re doing the right thing. > > Shockingly, there is no universal agreement on what “the right thing,” is. > > But we do have an agreement, nearly universal except for disgruntled liberals, about how to pass laws, and that’s our substitute. > > Now, if you’d like to switch to a system in which we simply do the right thing, and forget all the laws, and you’re willing to grant me the sole power to decide what the right thing is, then I humbly accept. Do you think it’s fair to call deliberate attempts to make it harder for black people to vote (these efforts in general, which include closing polling places, changing hours, and more) morally wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/191 "2018-08-31T00:17:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I argue that the three-judge district court in Common Cause v Rucho and League of Women Voters v Rucho, consolidated, failed to correctly apply existing precedent, and the the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn their finding. This is an interesting analysis, and I genuinely thank you for it. > [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, I _AM_ talking constitutional issues. I invite you to continue a discussion of what “should,” be, in your ideal world, without expecting me to weigh in on that thread of discussion. That’s fine. > [@Bricker](#): > > Everyone claims they’re doing the right thing. No no no. THAT’S FINE. That thing where you disinvited yourself from the discussion of other aspects of the issue? Maybe stick to that. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/192 "2018-08-31T00:23:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bricker** : > > I also argue that the question of gerrymandering (absent violation of a statute) is non-justicible, meaning that it’s a political question that the courts should not decide. Tampering with the electoral system is not only justicible, it is the single most justicible issue possible. If the legislature makes it impossible for opposing voters’ voices to be heard, then they cannot be voted out for that action. The only possible avenues for correction are the courts, and armed rebellion, and of the two, I far prefer the courts. > [@](#): > > Quoth **DSYoungEsq** : > > NO! NO!! NO!!! > > A THOUSAND TIMES NO!! > The reason for this is simple. That same approach to the Constitution produced Lochner v. New York. Whenever you take words that have some meaning, and you try to stretch those words to mean what you want the Constitution (or any law) to do, for reasons you think are morally or politically important, you get bad results. Certainly, trying to do the right thing can sometimes give bad results. But the judicial philosophy you espouse, of ignoring what is right and wrong in favor of what the law says, also gives bad results. It was your approach to jurisprudence that gave us Dred Scott. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/193 "2018-08-31T01:29:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Everyone claims they’re doing the right thing. > > Shockingly, there is no universal agreement on what “the right thing,” is. > > But we do have an agreement, nearly universal except for disgruntled liberals, about how to pass laws, and that’s our substitute. Is there disagreement that fair elections are the “right thing”? Certainly some (many) benefit from unfair elections but do they argue that unfair elections are the “right thing”? And how are disgruntled liberals supposed to get the laws changed if the lawmakers rig the elections so liberals cannot get their representatives in? [A new report says Democrats need to win the popular vote by 11 points to retake the House.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/194 "2018-08-31T01:38:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Tampering with the electoral system is not only justicible, it is the single most justicible issue possible. If the legislature makes it impossible for opposing voters’ voices to be heard, then they cannot be voted out for that action. The only possible avenues for correction are the courts, and armed rebellion, and of the two, I far prefer the courts. You would think so but the courts are weird about this. I listened to a podcast called “More Perfect” some time ago and [one of the episodes](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/the-political-thicket) related a supreme court case called _Baker v. Carr_. Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?” and his answer was this case. It was a redistricting case and it was so fraught with vehement opposition among the justices that it ultimately wrecked two justices (put one in the hospital and I think the other died shortly after). When listening to it I was amazed…OF COURSE this is something the court should decide on but there were some on the court passionately opposed to it (and that puts it mildly…as I noted this wrecked two justices so vehement was the battle). Opposed as in they felt it was not a question for the court to decide. Nevermind the facts of the case. I encourage you to listen to the episode (I linked to it above). It is fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/195 "2018-08-31T02:10:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you think it’s fair to call deliberate attempts to make it harder for black people to vote (these efforts in general, which include closing polling places, changing hours, and more) morally wrong? I think my moral sense either is dispositive, or it’s not. You can’t elect my wise guidance on this issue and then declare my moral reaction to abortion, for example, has no suasion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/196 "2018-08-31T02:14:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Tampering with the electoral system is not only justicible, it is the single most justicible issue possible. If the legislature makes it impossible for opposing voters’ voices to be heard, then they cannot be voted out for that action. The only possible avenues for correction are the courts, and armed rebellion, and of the two, I far prefer the courts. Says the Supreme Court, in _Vieth v Jubelirer_, 541 U.S. 267 (2004): > [@](#): > > Eighteen years of judicial effort with virtually nothing to show for it justify us in revisiting the question whether the standard promised by Bandemer exists. As the following discussion reveals, no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims have emerged. Lacking them,\*\* we must conclude that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable\*\* and that Bandemer was wrongly decided. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/197 "2018-08-31T02:14:25Z")
> [@](#): > > …You can’t elect my wise guidance on this issue and then declare my moral reaction to abortion, for example, has no suasion. Can’t be right about one thing, and wrong about something else? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/198 "2018-08-31T02:16:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think my moral sense either is dispositive, or it’s not. You can’t elect my wise guidance on this issue and then declare my moral reaction to abortion, for example, has no suasion. I’m interested in your opinion. As far as abortion, I couldn’t care less about your beliefs (or anyone’s) about its morality, only whether it should be legal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/199 "2018-08-31T02:19:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think my moral sense either is dispositive, or it’s not. You can’t elect my wise guidance on this issue and then declare my moral reaction to abortion, for example, has no suasion. Sure he can. It is this kind of bullshit that has a Pit thread currently running on you. It is entirely reasonable to ask you: 1. Do you think it is fair to make it more difficult for some people to vote than others? 2. Do you think abortion is ok? There is nothing that says you cannot answer both unless the questioner agrees to agree with you on both. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2018, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/200 "2018-08-31T02:21:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m interested in your opinion. I’m interested in Bricker’s legal opinions, since he can opine cogently and concisely and informatively in that area. When he ventures into the area of morality, his opinions tend toward the ultra-relativistic, self-righteous, and petulant. So no, I’m not particularly interested in those, and if he can only stick to his patronizing promise to leave that part of the discussion to others, we can all be happy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306.md?page=11)