# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/141 "2018-08-29T15:57:22Z")
> [@](#): > > …The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population)… > **[Voting rights in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)** > > Voting rights, specifically enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history. > Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex,... The wisdom of the Founders recognized that most citizens were not equipped to deal with complex questions of government. Gentlemen of property and businessmen assured that power would rest in the hands of those best prepared for the task. By a happy coincidence, themselves. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/142 "2018-08-29T16:11:46Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > Article 1, Section 2. > > “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year \*\*by the People \*\*of the several States.” Last I checked, **the People** included Democrats. What a stupid argument. By that reasoning, anytime someone’s candidate loses, the constitution is violated. :rolleyes: ---
**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 29, 2018, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/143 "2018-08-29T16:24:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Which portion of the constitution do you believe prohibits this? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/144 "2018-08-29T16:31:38Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > What a stupid argument. By that reasoning, anytime someone’s candidate loses, the constitution is violated. :rolleyes: Your argument is stupid. The point is not that voters are disenfranchised when they don’t vote for a winning candidate. The point is that voters are disenfranchised when their own government intentionally draws lines around their voters to intentionally turn one set of voters into a minority voice. It might not be slam-dunk obvious, but it seems to be a perfectly reasonable argument to me. “Hey, **Eonwe** , we know you vote for Star-bellied Sneeches, but we don’t want Star-bellied Sneeches in office so we’re going to count your vote over here with all these non-Star-bellied Sneeches voters who live across town, thus taking away your vote from your Star-bellied Sneech supporting neighborhood, so that the non-Star bellied candidate in your neighborhood will get elected.” Sure seems like it’s removing the power of “the people” to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/145 "2018-08-29T16:55:28Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > One thing that I find interesting - in the threads about people tearing down racist monuments like the one recently discussing Silent Sam, Law And Order types tend to come in with hearty condemnation of how terrible it is for people to scoff at our laws. There’s usually some rhetoric about how we as a society have to accept all dutifully passed laws or descend into an anarchic mob of people shooting each other over minor disagreements, and at least one solid call for pressing felony charges against people for something that’s obviously misdemeanor vandalism at worst. But you never see the Law And Order posters in a thread like this declaring that they abhor the legislature scoffing at the law, even though it’s clearly much worse to claim to be properly passing laws when you’re not actually passing them. The calls for respecting the law seem to have an odd selectivity to them. I absolutely oppose the legislature scoffing at the law, if indeed this is what they are doing. But I’d say that isn’t a settled question yet. Different courts have delivered different findings when considering the problem. Why should I accept your claim that the legislature is scoffing at the law when the law remains unclear at present? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/146 "2018-08-29T16:56:35Z")
One position is pro-democracy, one is anti-democracy. You tell us which we should pick. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/147 "2018-08-29T16:58:03Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > Article 1, Section 2. > > “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year \*\*by the People \*\*of the several States.” Last I checked, **the People** included Democrats. Yes. But “the People,” also includes fifteen year olds, felons, and non-citizens, and none of those exclusions offends that clause. I am a person, and I can’t choose a member of the House of Representatives in southern Virginia, because I live in Northern Virginia. THAT doesn’t offend the clause either. Right? So what are the specifics of that clause’s operation, according to you? Actually, scratch that – I have no care about what you think it should mean. What do the courts say it means? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/148 "2018-08-29T17:01:22Z")
> [@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? My purpose is to suggest that those court rulings are not final, and that a final ruling will find that the practice is constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/149 "2018-08-29T17:15:57Z")
Aw, you left off the fun part! “So, all you guys have to do is raise up a massive and overwhelming vote and take over all the levers of power, then pass a Constitutional amendment! Neener-neener, and good luck with that!” ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/150 "2018-08-29T18:59:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I absolutely oppose the legislature scoffing at the law, if indeed this is what they are doing. But I’d say that isn’t a settled question yet. Different courts have delivered different findings when considering the problem. They are scoffing election law exactly as much as the people toppling Silent Sam were scoffing the ‘historical preservation’ law, but your opprobrium appears to be directed in vastly different ways in the two cases. You criticized people toppling the statue before there had been any charges filed, much less a conclusive court case. Why do people toppling racist statues warrant immediate condemnation, but a legislature ignoring election law gets no condemnation unless and until the Supreme Court steps in? And I’d like a cite for which courts have delivered substantially different findings when considering the problem of NC’s gerrymandered districts. > [@](#): > > Why should I accept your claim that the legislature is scoffing at the law when the law remains unclear at present? So you’re asserting that if one considers a law ‘unclear’, one has the right to ignore it? And it’s rather telling that ‘laws protecting racist statues’ get the ‘assumed good’ treatment, while ‘laws protecting against illegitimate redistricting’ get the ‘assumed invalid’ treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/151 "2018-08-29T19:29:02Z")
I assume that **Bricker** ’s point is that the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that a partisan gerrymander is unconstitutional. There is a clear law that knocking over a statue is an offence (unlawful property damage, or whatever the local jurisdiction calls it.) There is no clear law that a partisan gerrymander is illegal. So, it’s hard to say that the drafters of this particular districting plan were scoffing at the law. In other words, cite for the law that the drafters of the districting plan were scoffing at? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/152 "2018-08-29T19:34:01Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > In other words, cite for the law that the drafters of the districting plan were scoffing at? It starts “We the People”. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/153 "2018-08-29T19:35:39Z")
You can’t assume that all things that seem wrong are in fact illegal. If enough people get upset by it, then it might become illegal. In Agatha Christie’s book _Crooked House_, the recently deceased was a crook. That is, he was smart and understood the rules and always conducted himself that he was never committing a crime, just coming as close to the line as possible. Everyone everyone agreed he was crooked, especially in relation to making profits off the war effort in WWII. The police inspector summed it up to Poirot: “Nothing he did was ever illegal, technically. But once the government found out what he was doing, they usually made it illegal.” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/154 "2018-08-29T19:36:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It starts “We the People”. Sure. and then? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/155 "2018-08-29T19:38:35Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > You can’t assume that all things that seem wrong are in fact illegal. Who do you see doing that? The discussion has been about what \*should \*be illegal, what the courts \*should \*rule unconstitutional, what the spirit of the constitution that \*should \*guide them is, all combined with skepticism that they will do so. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/156 "2018-08-29T19:40:17Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Sure. and then? Wouldn’t you rather the ruling be in accordance with the spirit of our founding document and the principles it lays out, not a way to skirt it? You’re posting as a lawyer, not a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/157 "2018-08-29T20:19:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My purpose is to suggest that those court rulings are not final, and that a final ruling will find that the practice is constitutional. Whether something is constitutional is different from whether something is justiciable. It may well be that 5 members of the Supreme Court think partisan gerrymandering is not justiciable. That doesn’t mean they think it does not violate the Constitution. ---
**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 29, 2018, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/158 "2018-08-29T22:31:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bricker** : > > Why should I accept your claim that the legislature is scoffing at the law when the law remains unclear at present? What, you mean that it’s impossible to rule according to the clear text of the law? And here I thought that you were a strict constructionist. Oh, and partisan gerrymandering also falls afoul of the Constitutional clause guaranteeing the states a republican form of government. ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/159 "2018-08-29T22:43:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Which portion of the constitution do you believe prohibits this? > > Any time you ask how X is constitutional, ask yourself if you can identify the specific clause that the conduct violates. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have no care about what you think it should mean. What do the courts say it means? God you’re exhausting. I have no interest in chasing goalposts. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306/160 "2018-08-29T22:47:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > partisan gerrymandering also falls afoul of the Constitutional clause guaranteeing the states a republican form of government. Depends on the capitalization. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-federal-house-districts-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered/806306.md?page=9)