The governor commissioned a study of how black people vote, and then based on the results of that study, implemented measures designed to decrease black turnout.
Overtly? Or what was the cover story? I take it they didn’t get away with it?
Googling North Carolina voting study suppression has too many hits so I’m going by memory. The cover story was that it was political instead of racially-motivated. But the study studied which election changes would impact black people and Democrats and selectively implemented the ones that would impact black people, and their cover was well they vote Democratic anyway so it was politically motivated. But I might be wrong.
The cover story was that it was political
But that was thought somehow acceptable? Our parties can at least usually find some sort of figleaf argument to cover partisan benefit, and there are plenty of people to say “Come off it” when it’s too obvious.
Plenty of people said “come off it” when McConnell rammed through a Supreme Court justice right before an election. Did that change anything?
You’re ridiculously overrating the power of the minority party in a state controlled by the other party. Where have you been the past few years?
No, it’s a bs “gotcha” question.
Hypothetical: Why don’t we make one big state and put all democrats in there, then they’ll all have senators? Oh, you don’t want to do that? I guess you don’t actually care about representation!
DC was formed precisely because it was thought that giving a state the federal seat of power would bias legislation towards the interests of that state.
Another way of looking at it is that since DC is full of government people, giving them representation is basically giving the government itself representation in the bodies that are supposed to act as a check against the government.
But if you really care about the people getting representation, and this isn’t a ploy to add more Democrats to the House and Senate, the logical answer would be to fold DC into Virginia or Maryland. Making it its own state is ridiculous.
ST: TNG also did a 52 star flag.
Why do you feel this is a serious problem? Is it a problem in Ottawa or London or Paris? Is it a problem in any state or provincial capitals? Is it a problem in Arlington, Virginia where the Pentagon is located? I’ll point out what should be obvious; the overwhelming majority of people living in the District of Columbia do not work for the federal government.
Presidents and Senators and members of the House of Representatives are never going to be official residents of the District of Columbia, or a state formed from it (except for the two Senators and the member of the House representing that state, natch). Of everyone else who lives in D.C., these days fewer than 200,000 of the over 700,000 Americans who live in the District even work for the federal government in any capacity at all. In addition to equal justice for those half-a-million American citizens who live in D.C. and who are butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers (or Uber drivers, hair dressers, waiters, or small business owners), it’s not like the Americans who work for the Postal Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture and who happen to live in one of the 50 states ought to somehow be deprived of equal representation in Congress.
And why would folding D.C. into Virginia or Maryland not bias federal legislation towards the interests of whichever state that is?
I’m not sure I agree with that. I feel the people who run the Republican party and who benefit from the Republican agenda, mainly promote racism as a means of attracting a reliable voter base. If those party leaders thought they could attract more voters by condemning racism and promoting minority causes, they would switch. The principle they hold most dear isn’t racism; it’s staying in power.
I don’t feel full statehood is a possible option. How are you going to get the Senate (which looks like it will retain a Republican majority) to vote for it?
I’m following your line of argument, which is that it’s either silly or archaic to think you can’t have the seat of power in a state. In that case, the logical thing to do would be to dissolve DC and make it part of an existing state. Because DC just does not have the characteristics of a state. It has no National Guard, no resl economy other than government and businesses that service the government, and so on.
On the other hand, you gloss over the real reason DC was not made a state: because the U.S. is a federation of States, and those states were distrustful of federal power. Having one state own the seat of federal power gave them advantages over the others, and having a federal government exist in a state it could pass laws for and against was seen as a corrupting influence.
I was going to give a serious reply to your post but I just can’t get over this. A state is only meaningful if it has a National Guard? Has anyone anywhere concocted a statement that was comprised of more 2nd amendment bullshit than this? A state can be many things but a place that has a National Guard wouldn’t be in the top 1000.
That this statement is foolish almost literally beyond belief is instantly recognizable, but the depth of the foolishness cannot be fully appreciated until one checks the the real world for facts.
Washington, DC, has a National Guard. It has had one since 1802.
Puerto Rico, BTW, also has a National Guard. Apparently we need to immediately recognize it as a state.
And Guam. And the Virgin Islands.
From the perspective of reality, having a National Guard is about the most trivial aspect of a political entity. Though not quite as trivial as your argument.
It’s certainly not a possible option without control of the Senate.
Not in the USA. Being in a majority doesn’t of itself engender shamelessness.
I disagree. Obviously no place has the exact characteristics of a state before becoming a state; if it did it would be a state. But I feel the District of Columbia has a legitimate claim to having the potential to be a state.
It’s connected to existing states. It’s been part of the United States. It has a significant population. It has a clearly defined territory which is not disputed. It has an existing local government. Its residents are part of mainstream American culture.
There are several existing states that couldn’t have checked off all of the items on that list.
I had no idea DC had its own National Guard. I’ll take that part back.
But let’s get back to the actual reason DC was created: To avoid giving the government’s host state extra power.
For example, let’s say the entire federal government had been in Virginia, and made up of Virginia residents. How do you think that might have affected laws against the tobacco industry? Do you think the federal government just might be more hostile to anti-tobacco laws, and a little more prone to levying tariffs on tobacco imports? If the federal government were in Pennsylvania, do you think that might just impact laws against fracking?
That’s the kind of corruption the creation of DC was supposed to stop. The states were supposed to be equal partners, and hosting the federal government in one of them would have broken that.
And again, if you don’t think this is a problem, then why doesn’t it make more sense to simply dissolve DC and make it part of Virginia or Maryland?
I, for one, had no idea that any of those jurisdictions had their own guards. I knew about the U.S. Capitol Police, which is (from what I can tell) different. I did not instantly recognize Sam_Stone’s argument as foolish beyond belief, and I appreciate your cites.
~Max
No, the fact that DC has a National Guard unit is amusing and ironic, but is irrelevant to the point.
Sam has given away his mindset. The very idea that any rational adult would consider whether a National Guard unit is present or not to be a persuasive argument over whether a political entity is deserving of being a state is the foolishness at issue. The scorn would actually have worked better if National Guard units were limited to states, as he appeared to believe. His argument seems to have been that since a non-state lacks a state-only aspect it can’t become a state. That’s more muddled than a mojito.
The existing District of Columbia hasn’t been a part of Maryland for over two centuries. It’s a separate and different place from Maryland, and there’s no reason to shoehorn D.C. in to that existing state. AFAIK, neither the people of D.C. nor the people of Maryland want that.