My wife is helping register students at a local university, focusing on students who live on campus.
The district line runs down the middle of a dorm’s hallway. Literally, students on one side of the hall live in one district; those on the other side live in the other district.
This is intentional.
Fuck yes we should each have standing.
don’t forget they had the “I-85 district” where part of the district was just the 4 lanes of I-85 , where of course nobody lived. They did that to link parts of the district to each other. They might still do that now.
My google fails me. Didn’t the Supreme Court already hear this case earlier in the year and find no standing?
Political gerrymanders have been around since the founding. The federal courts need to get out of this area where they have absolutely no right to be.
Just for shifts and goggles, lets say the NC Dems have a case. Let’s say that they’re telling the straight truth, that the Pubbies in their state are deliberately using the law to give themselves a partisan boost.
Question numero uno: Does
justify this in any way, shape or form?
Numero two-o: To whom do they complain, whom do they “petition for a redress of grievance”, if not the Federal court? If there is no option, your advice is lube up and bend over?
No. They heard a different case which they declared lacked proper standing, and told NC to revisit its decision based on that other ruling.
I’m interested in having an attorney analyze how this court looked at the standing issue.
You doubt me?!? :eek:
I’m deeply hurt. 
Careful what you wish for. I’ve kept a rough count, and there are about a dozen self-confessed lawyers here on the Boards.
I’ll cop to being a lawyer but not an attorney. 
Rep. David Lewis, a Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly, told fellow legislators in 2016 when they passed the redistricting plan, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country. I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”
Sure enough, 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats got elected. How can it be constitutional to flagrantly undermine democracy like this?
Aleister Crowley was of course a magnificent fraud, which makes him the best source of all for this quote.
Some Republicans have malign motives in all this. I have that on the very best authority.
(I had to look that up, found it so hard to believe. Best source on it says he said it in an open meeting of a legislative type committee, and was quoted by his opposition. No transcipt is offered, best as I can tell. He is also quoted on a number of rectaloid opinions, but no hint of a denial.)
I’ve actually seen an argument that, since partisan gerrymandering has never been found to be unconstitutional but racial gerrymandering has, it’s* in the controlling party’s interests* to go around loudly trumpeting the partisan lean of a particular map.
This is a real quote and not a parody quote? He might have well have said: “I think accurate Democratic representation is bad for the country, so I’m going to intentionally disenfranchise half of my constituents in order to maintain control of power.”
Democracy is broken, and Rep. David Lewis (and others) do not believe in, nor do they practice Democracy.
Here’s where a Neo-Confederate thug comes in and chants “a republic, not a democracy!”
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.
I, for one, could give two flying eagles whether or not it’s constitutional (and don’t know enough to have an opinion on that). It clearly breaks Democracy, and so is morally and philosophically wrong.
Furthermore, if legislators are going to play hardball in the open with this sort of thing, then we clearly need legislation to shut that shit down.
Bottom line “I’m drawing a map to ensure that my party gets 77% of the representation in the house while only receiving 53% of the vote” is evil-villain level, anti-Democratic scheming, and we should all be against it on principal.
And then turns around and says “why should the courts be able to thwart the will of the people?”
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.
Do IANALBIALOOTIs (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Act Like One On The Internet) like me count?
Except, of course, when “the will of the people” is to ban some type of gun.
You want to get around gerrymandering while still keeping districts and “representative” government?
How about drawing the districts however you choose, but voting for Representatives is done at the party, and statewide, level (each independent candidate appears on every ballot - no, that won’t turn every House election into the California 2003 special election with four pages of candidates for governor, will it?); each party submits a list of candidates, one per district, and the seats are assigned similar to how the 435 seats are assigned to states, with each party, in elected order, choosing a district similar to, say, the NFL Draft?
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.