A map of Maxine Waters’s Congressional District. Not exactly gerrymandered.
David Lewis was the state legislator responsible for drawing the 2016 plan. He was chosen democratically by the democratically-elected Legislature of North Carolina in accordance with the democratic rules of that Legislature and the constitutions of the U.S.A. and No. Carolina. Every step of this districting process was performed in accordance with the democratic rules created by processes controlled democratically by the voting citizens of North Carolina; and these legislators performed their duties to fulfill the wishes of the people who elected them democratically. If the citizens of North Carolina prefer that different boundaries be drawn, it is their democratic right to elect different legislators. But they didn’t do that. Instead, the democratic districting of North Carolina was overthrown by an activist court, 2/3 of which was appointed by Democratic Presidents, including the 85-year old William Earl Britt appointed by James Earl Carter.
IIUC, no state judge, democratically chosen by the people of North Carolina, found fault with the districting.
Do you hate Democracy, OP?
This is the same democratically elected redistricting head who said that the only reason he was able to get ten Republicans and three Democrats out of the process was because he couldn’t figure out a way to get eleven Republicans and two Democrats, the same guy who said that it was belief that the more Republicans, the better for the country.
Next time when you’re trying to rewrite history at least be a little less blatant about it. Did you also mean all those activist Supreme Court Justices who just upheld the state and appeals rulings? Nice try.
Tyranny of the majority. The good people of North Carolina can agree to do whatever damn fool thing they want, but if it infringes on the rights of the other good people of North Carolina, then the agreement was fundamentally illegal and therefore void.
People, not parties, are entitled to representation.
Of course this is true, but in no way does it address what I wrote.
I was using Ms. Waters as an example of the type of candidate that Republicans love to see Democrats elect, not as an example of gerrymandering. Sorry for the confusion.
well the “activist court” was put in place by democratically elected presidents right? and they followed all the laws to put those judges in place.
Based on what I know about you, I think this was satire–but if so, I confess I, and apparently other folks reading it, aren’t quite catching the underlying satirical point you’re making.
I was just trying to do whatshisname a favor, saving him a click by posting his views on the matter. I forgot we weren’t in the Pit.
Which Supreme Court justices, specifically, did that?
Any speculation on the supreme court’s decision on this? I’d like to see gerrymandering overturned everywhere, but we will see.
Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor. I know exactly where you’re going to try to go with that.
Alito, Roberts and Kennedy dissented, and Gorsuch wasn’t involved in that decision.
I’m not sure which Scotus decision is being referenced here, but …
Interesting. Did Scalia’s death release Thomas from a witch’s spell, much like in the fairytale of Brothers Grimm? 
All the snark in the world doesn’t make a bad argument good.
You were asked to defend a trend of behavior. You provided a single, cherrypicked example. This is not data and does not prove what you were asked to defend.
I will also note that he is using the exact opposite argument he made in the Voter ID situation, where he required Democrats to defend the status quo. He is using an argument used against him, about the convenience that his plan helped Republicans, as a way to attack us.
And before he tries to reverse this, I will point out that our argument for fixing gerrymandering is not the same as his argument for voter ID, because our argument is not about “having more faith in the voting system” (Bricker’s argument for Voter ID in the face of no problems being shown and Voter ID not fixing them if they were) but actually making it more fair. As is our argument against voter ID, which makes the system less fair. We are being consistent.
He is being partisan rather than consistent. The tactic is to use whatever argument supports his partisan conclusions without regard to fairness or any other actual standard. It is just “this is what would help Republicans, so I support it.”
This is a simple problem that can be fixed. It only supports Democrats inasmuch as it is undoing Republican gerrymandering. It supports Republicans when it undoes Democratic gerrymandering. Ironically, bringing up examples of Democratic gerrymandering only helps the case!
I say simple, because we have the tech to do these optimizing problems, and the census data to pull it off. All you do is optimize for the fewest number of border lines while getting the closest possible to the actual numbers. From there, both sides can vote on modifications, and only those they both agree on will be changed. It’s already been shown that both parties trying to gerrymander as far as they can also produces the maximum fairness.
The issue is simply political. It is getting both sides to see the utility in having things actually be fair, since it can both help or hurt them in the future. It’s putting long term goals in front of short term ones. We’ve been doing it for millennia. It’s why we create laws, so that short term goals align with long term goals.
Why is murder illegal? Because we don’t want people to murder us. And why should gerrymandering be illegal? Because we don’t want the other party gerrymandering against us. A child can understand it: hell, preschoolers do when they learn to share.
It was the final appeal on the NC courts’ rulings on the gerrymandering case.
One can only hope.
Or more like a marionette released from his strings?
As an aside: A few years ago, Ohio had a measure on the ballot, supposedly to prevent gerrymandering, but which would have actually required an extreme amount of gerrymandering, in a way which would have (at the time) strongly favored the Democrats. It failed soundly. The next election, they had a measure on the ballot which actually would prevent gerrymandering, at the state level at least, albeit in a very clumsy and jerry-rigged way. It passed.
Both measures were proposed and voted on at a time when Democrats held a majority in Ohio. So apparently, Democratic voters actually do favor fairness over advantaging their own party.
Well, fuck. “We don’t have TIIIIME to fix the mess we made!” and the Supreme Court said, “Oh, you poor babies, you don’t have to do it this year.”
So we’re in for another two years of 47% of Tarheels gerrymandered into 23% of the representation.
Thanks, Supreme Court!