Florida Judge Tosses State’s Outrageous GOP Gerrymander
Click here for reuse options!Florida’s congressional districts are some of the most GOP-friendly in the country. Although President Obama won a narrow victory over Mitt Romney in Florida during the 2012 presidential election, Republicans control 17 of the state’s 27 congressional districts. That means that, even though Obama won a majority of the votes cast by Floridians in 2012, Romney’s Republican Party controls nearly two-thirds of Florida’s U.S. House delegation.
On Thursday, a Florida trial court held that the congressional maps that produced this lopsided result violate the state’s constitution. Under an amendment added to the Florida Constitution in 2010, “[n]o apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” The amendment also provides protection against certain kinds of racial gerrymanders, and it establishes a preference for districts that are compact and “utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.”
Judge Terry P. Lewis’s opinion reaches several significant conclusions. He strikes down two congressional districts — Districts 5 & 10 — as violations of the state constitution. He also holds that “[i]f one or more districts do not meet constitutional muster, then the entire [redistricting] act is unconstitutional.” Thus, if his decision is ultimately upheld, the legislature will need to consider an entirely new map — although Judge Lewis adds that this holding does not mean that “portions of the map not affected by those individual districts found to be improperly drawn would need to be changed in a redrawn map.” He also relies upon a prior Florida Supreme Court decision holding that districts typically “should not have an unusual shape, a bizarre design, or an unnecessary appendage” and that districts containing “finger-like extensions, narrow and bizarrely shaped tentacles, and hook like shapes . . . are constitutionally suspect and often indicative of racial and partisan gerrymandering.” …
Lewis discusses significant evidence that Republican lawmakers colluded with Republican operatives regarding the maps. Early in the process, Republican legislative leaders met with a group of GOP political operatives and a top Republican lawyer to discuss redistricting. The deputy chief of staff to Florida’s then-house speaker shared draft maps with a particular Republican consultant at least 24 times. In some cases, he provided this GOP consultant “with draft maps that were never released to the public.”
Yet, while Judge Lewis’s opinion reaches some damning conclusions about the current congressional maps, Thursday’s decision is far from a total victory for the plaintiffs in this case. Those plaintiffs challenged nine of Florida’s congressional districts, but Lewis only struck down two.
Nevertheless, his opinion is a significant victory over one of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation, and it also an important proof of concept.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo
David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.
* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.
92 responses to Florida Judge Tosses State’s Outrageous GOP Gerrymander
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
R.J. Carter July 11th, 2014 at 09:29
Fix up Florida, then come fix Illinois.
Anomaly 100 July 11th, 2014 at 09:49
Deal. Fix ’em all in a bipartisan fashion. I’ll be a happy camper then. Also, I’m not a camper but still…
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 10:01
I have no problem with drawing districts by the proper borders. New jersey is some of the worst gerrymandered disticts that I know. And while we are at it, can we start to look to an electoral college system for state elections instead of popular vote. NJ is extremely diverse, but controlled by the masses in the I95 corridor. Where North and South of that corridor are extremely different.
Anomaly 100 July 11th, 2014 at 10:08
Hmm…I would need to research that further. The popular vote seems to get shafted by the electoral sometimes.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 11:10
I am only talking New jersey for this conversation. But we have I95 that runs through the middle and north towards New York City. Along that route, is Camden, Trenton, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City as well as a few others. These cities are packed with people, tend to be low income, and crime ridden. They dont share the same values and concerns that all of the southern jersey farmers do, or the North Western mountain region. So when you go by popular vote, as per say US Senators. You get a lop sided election that does not reflect the different values of the different regions.
this is just a “SPOOF” map that somebody created. But it is actually pretty indicative of how diverse we are…
Ron Jackson July 11th, 2014 at 11:51
“Along that route, is Camden, Trenton, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City as well as a few others. These cities are packed with people, tend to be low income, and crime ridden. They dont share the same values and concerns that all of the southern jersey farmers”
Meaning Northern Jersey is mostly minority i.e black and hispanic,whereas southern jersey is mostly white
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 12:04
If that is what you want to take it as. But the comment is meant, that inner city people do not have the same problems as rural people do. And rural people do not have the same problems as Inner city do. it was not a race thing, but you want to take it there.
arc99 July 11th, 2014 at 12:32
I would unequivocally oppose any system which removes election results from the popular vote.
This country has always had different groups of people with different priorities.
To be honest, I am quite suspicious that these kinds of discussions start only when conservatives lose elections. Some are advocating repeal of the 17th amendment to eliminate the popular vote for US Senate. Aside from voter id laws around the country, we see efforts to reduce the number of polling places in poor neighborhoods, as well as reduce early voting days.
Instead of further changes to the process which make it more difficult for the individual to be heard, I suggest that we elect people for whom compromise is not a dirty word and to be partisan about it, do not dismiss as a RINO any conservative who is willing to listen to opposing views.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 13:20
Maybe it is because where I live, I disagree and do not like the popular vote when it comes to statewide elections. i dont believe you get a fair representation of all the areas. Just as an example, and dont read into to deep. But when Cory Booker ran for the special election to replace Lautenbeurg. We never saw him anywhere but in 4-5 cities. and those cities was all he needed statewide because of the populations.
Now this conversation started about gerrymandering. My contention is, that NJ has some o the worst.
arc99 July 11th, 2014 at 13:54
aside from a wholesale revision of the US Constitution to implement a parliamentary type of system where every party is guaranteed a number of seats in the legislature based on share of the popular vote, I am not supportive of any system which would remove the popular vote as the determining factor in elections. I realize that a Constitutional solution is a non-starter for many people as it would increase federal control over state elections.
I admit my view is based on cynicism and suspicion. But the fact is that over the years, prominent conservatives have gone on the record expressing the view that they do not want everyone to vote. For me, it is an uncomfortable coincidence, given that history that we now have these proposals circulating which would in fact reduce the impact of the popular vote.
I agree that the districting process should essentially lay a piece of graph paper over the state map, adjust each square only to equalize as much as possible the population in each square and be done with it.
There is always going to be a minority in philosophical terms, not ethnic, whose priorities are not addressed by elected officials. That is the system we have and barring a wholesale change as I mentioned above, it is the system that I reluctantly say, we keep.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 14:14
I like the idea of the Graph paper overlay.. Here is your square, now go meet the people, versus a jigsaw puzzle effect… Can we discuss that further. =)
eaglesfanintn July 11th, 2014 at 14:52
Want to see some crazy districts – look at North Carolina’s latest map. If you know the state (and FWIW I lived in both New Jersey – graduated from high school there, and North Carolina – lived there for 10 years in the Raleigh area.
These districts are totally made up, by Republicans, to maximize their potential wins. Not saying that both parties aren’t guilty of this kind of crap, but this is pretty extreme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina's_congressional_districts
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 14:58
DAMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!! Reminds me of a bad acid trip… Ohh wait, that might have been a good acid trip if I was still doing it….
Dwendt44 July 11th, 2014 at 21:38
While it may be true that both parties do it, it seems that the Republicans, partly due to desperation, have taken the practice to extremes. They are scared to death that a non-partisan committee would replace their imaginative scheme.
eaglesfanintn July 13th, 2014 at 10:49
Very true. I guess I like to head off the conservodouches that will say “gee, it’s not like the Democrats don’t do it too”. The GOP, despite their bluster on the Sunday ‘news’ shows, are scared at the local level. Dems running for Congress received something like 425,000 more votes in the last election, yet the GOP gained seats. That should say it all.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 13:01
The notion of minority representation as being unfair is a right wing meme that shows their declining influence in urban areas. If the right had better ideas for governance, they would have greater influence over the electorate. That they gerrymander districts to their own advantage rather than campaign and govern honestly is proof of their interest in amassing and keeping power.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 13:37
I dont see how this is a right or left view in regards to what I am referring to.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 13:42
Of course you don’t. But, you have no problem with making this statement, “…and do not like the popular vote when it comes to statewide elections.”, and “…when Cory Booker ran for the special election to replace Lautenbeurg. We never saw him anywhere but in 4-5 cities”. Your problem is with democracy itself, another right wing issue.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 15:13
Sorry, but truth hurts in this situation. You have a state that is won by who can gardner the I95 vote. Sorry, I dont buy this I hate democracy crap. We use an electoral college to elect our president. We use congressional districts to elect our congress. Why is a State senator a popularity contest??
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 18:11
I don’t typically do other people’s research. I’ll make a special exemption for you. Read and learn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 18:27
I am aware of the 17th. I don’t happen to agree with it.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 18:28
Gee, that pesky Constitution restricting our freedumbs again.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 22:05
Not even that. I have always disliked popularity contests. And in this case, I think we lose out.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 22:56
Choosing candidates is not a “popularity contest”. Dancing and singing competitions on TV are popularity contests. If you understand the difference, perhaps, you’ll make better choices in the politicians you support.
Ron Jackson July 11th, 2014 at 13:48
You stated that those in Northern jersey ” Do not share the same values, as those in southern jersey” the key word being “values” as if to say those in northern jersey values are less than those in southern jersey.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 13:55
Values may be wrong word. Change it to concerns or problems. But basically people living in the North Western mountain region have different problems and issues then say, somebody living in Newark, who is going to have different issues then a farmer in the south, as a posed to coastal residents. But I think you can get the drift.
mmaynard119 July 14th, 2014 at 09:24
But that’s true in every state. As small as Massachusetts is, it has 6 different mini-states: Western Mass, Central Mass, Cape Cod, North Shore, Boston and Boston Suburbs. Different sets of issues, different sets of voting patterns. For those who think Mass. is all liberal, the North Shore and parts of Central Mass are more Republican than Democrat.
Pistol-Packing July 14th, 2014 at 11:01
That is very true.
Anomaly 100 July 11th, 2014 at 10:08
Hmm…I would need to research that further. The popular vote seems to get shafted by the electoral sometimes.
wifather2000 July 11th, 2014 at 11:00
And then, or at the same time as Illinois, come to Wisconsin!
mmaynard119 July 12th, 2014 at 08:34
RJ – how many lifetimes do you have to wait? Florida is a political cesspool.
R.J. Carter July 14th, 2014 at 09:14
Many states are, my own included. Not enough plumbers.
R.J. Carter July 11th, 2014 at 09:29
Fix up Florida, then come fix Illinois.
Anomaly 100 July 11th, 2014 at 09:49
Deal. Fix ’em all in a bipartisan fashion. I’ll be a happy camper then. Also, I’m not a camper but still…
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 10:01
I have no problem with drawing districts by the proper borders. New jersey is some of the worst gerrymandered disticts that I know. And while we are at it, can we start to look to an electoral college system for state elections instead of popular vote. NJ is extremely diverse, but controlled by the masses in the I95 corridor. Where North and South of that corridor are extremely different.
Anomaly 100 July 11th, 2014 at 10:08
Hmm…I would need to research that further. The popular vote seems to get shafted by the electoral sometimes.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 11:10
I am only talking New jersey for this conversation. But we have I95 that runs through the middle and north towards New York City. Along that route, is Camden, Trenton, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City as well as a few others. These cities are packed with people, tend to be low income, and crime ridden. They dont share the same values and concerns that all of the southern jersey farmers do, or the North Western mountain region. So when you go by popular vote, as per say US Senators. You get a lop sided election that does not reflect the different values of the different regions.
this is just a “SPOOF” map that somebody created. But it is actually pretty indicative of how diverse we are…
Ron Jackson July 11th, 2014 at 11:51
“Along that route, is Camden, Trenton, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City as well as a few others. These cities are packed with people, tend to be low income, and crime ridden. They dont share the same values and concerns that all of the southern jersey farmers”
Meaning Northern Jersey is mostly minority i.e black and hispanic,whereas southern jersey is mostly white
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 12:04
If that is what you want to take it as. But the comment is meant, that inner city people do not have the same problems as rural people do. And rural people do not have the same problems as Inner city do. it was not a race thing, but you want to take it there.
arc99 July 11th, 2014 at 12:32
I would unequivocally oppose any system which removes election results from the popular vote.
This country has always had different groups of people with different priorities.
To be honest, I am quite suspicious that these kinds of discussions start only when conservatives lose elections. Some are advocating repeal of the 17th amendment to eliminate the popular vote for US Senate. Aside from voter id laws around the country, we see efforts to reduce the number of polling places in poor neighborhoods, as well as reduce early voting days.
Instead of further changes to the process which make it more difficult for the individual to be heard, I suggest that we elect people for whom compromise is not a dirty word and to be partisan about it, do not dismiss as a RINO any conservative who is willing to listen to opposing views.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 13:20
Maybe it is because where I live, I disagree and do not like the popular vote when it comes to statewide elections. i dont believe you get a fair representation of all the areas. Just as an example, and dont read into to deep. But when Cory Booker ran for the special election to replace Lautenbeurg. We never saw him anywhere but in 4-5 cities. and those cities was all he needed statewide because of the populations.
Now this conversation started about gerrymandering. My contention is, that NJ has some o the worst.
arc99 July 11th, 2014 at 13:54
aside from a wholesale revision of the US Constitution to implement a parliamentary type of system where every party is guaranteed a number of seats in the legislature based on share of the popular vote, I am not supportive of any system which would remove the popular vote as the determining factor in elections. I realize that a Constitutional solution is a non-starter for many people as it would increase federal control over state elections.
I admit my view is based on cynicism and suspicion. But the fact is that over the years, prominent conservatives have gone on the record expressing the view that they do not want everyone to vote. For me, it is an uncomfortable coincidence, given that history that we now have these proposals circulating which would in fact reduce the impact of the popular vote.
I agree that the districting process should essentially lay a piece of graph paper over the state map, adjust each square only to equalize as much as possible the population in each square and be done with it.
There is always going to be a minority in philosophical terms, not ethnic, whose priorities are not addressed by elected officials. That is the system we have and barring a wholesale change as I mentioned above, it is the system that I reluctantly say, we keep.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 14:14
I like the idea of the Graph paper overlay.. Here is your square, now go meet the people, versus a jigsaw puzzle effect… Can we discuss that further. =)
eaglesfanintn July 11th, 2014 at 14:52
Want to see some crazy districts – look at North Carolina’s latest map. If you know the state (and FWIW I lived in both New Jersey – graduated from high school there, and North Carolina – lived there for 10 years in the Raleigh area.
These districts are totally made up, by Republicans, to maximize their potential wins. Not saying that both parties aren’t guilty of this kind of crap, but this is pretty extreme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina's_congressional_districts
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 14:58
DAMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!! Reminds me of a bad acid trip… Ohh wait, that might have been a good acid trip if I was still doing it….
Dwendt44 July 11th, 2014 at 21:38
While it may be true that both parties do it, it seems that the Republicans, partly due to desperation, have taken the practice to extremes. They are scared to death that a non-partisan committee would replace their imaginative scheme.
eaglesfanintn July 13th, 2014 at 10:49
Very true. I guess I like to head off the conservodouches that will say “gee, it’s not like the Democrats don’t do it too”. The GOP, despite their bluster on the Sunday ‘news’ shows, are scared at the local level. Dems running for Congress received something like 425,000 more votes in the last election, yet the GOP gained seats. That should say it all.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 13:01
The notion of minority representation as being unfair is a right wing meme that shows their declining influence in urban areas. If the right had better ideas for governance, they would have greater influence over the electorate. That they gerrymander districts to their own advantage rather than campaign and govern honestly is proof of their interest in amassing and keeping power.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 13:37
I dont see how this is a right or left view in regards to what I am referring to.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 13:42
Of course you don’t. But, you have no problem with making this statement, “…and do not like the popular vote when it comes to statewide elections.”, and “…when Cory Booker ran for the special election to replace Lautenbeurg. We never saw him anywhere but in 4-5 cities”. Your problem is with democracy itself, another right wing issue.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 15:13
Sorry, but truth hurts in this situation. You have a state that is won by who can gardner the I95 vote. Sorry, I dont buy this I hate democracy crap. We use an electoral college to elect our president. We use congressional districts to elect our congress. Why is a State senator a popularity contest??
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 18:11
I don’t typically do other people’s research. I’ll make a special exemption for you. Read and learn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 18:27
I am aware of the 17th. I don’t happen to agree with it.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 18:28
Gee, that pesky Constitution restricting our freedumbs again.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 22:05
Not even that. I have always disliked popularity contests. And in this case, I think we lose out.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 22:56
Choosing candidates is not a “popularity contest”. Dancing and singing competitions on TV are popularity contests. If you understand the difference, perhaps, you’ll make better choices in the politicians you support.
Ron Jackson July 11th, 2014 at 13:48
You stated that those in Northern jersey ” Do not share the same values, as those in southern jersey” the key word being “values” as if to say those in northern jersey values are less than those in southern jersey.
Pistol-Packing July 11th, 2014 at 13:55
Values may be wrong word. Change it to concerns or problems. But basically people living in the North Western mountain region have different problems and issues then say, somebody living in Newark, who is going to have different issues then a farmer in the south, as a posed to coastal residents. But I think you can get the drift.
mmaynard119 July 14th, 2014 at 09:24
But that’s true in every state. As small as Massachusetts is, it has 6 different mini-states: Western Mass, Central Mass, Cape Cod, North Shore, Boston and Boston Suburbs. Different sets of issues, different sets of voting patterns. For those who think Mass. is all liberal, the North Shore and parts of Central Mass are more Republican than Democrat.
Pistol-Packing July 14th, 2014 at 11:01
That is very true.
wifather2000 July 11th, 2014 at 11:00
And then, or at the same time as Illinois, come to Wisconsin!
mmaynard119 July 12th, 2014 at 08:34
RJ – how many lifetimes do you have to wait? Florida is a political cesspool.
R.J. Carter July 14th, 2014 at 09:14
Many states are, my own included. Not enough plumbers.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 10:08
Here is a crazy idea, how about districts following county lines…period. we have these contrived districts now and we have heavily Dem districts right next to heavily Rep districts. Why not take the influence out of it and just follow existing county boundaries?
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 12:44
Good idea for its simplicity but the problem comes from equally apportioning voters to each legislative district.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 12:53
great point, but combining counties can at least come close to apportionment and there is nothing partisan about a county boundary line. Seems like an imperfect (and there is no perfect solution) but logical way to simply remove politics from districting.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 13:04
Yes, natural boundaries should be the basis, coupled to total population count in each legislative district. That’s the point for re-apportioning following each census.
The logical way to remove politics from this is to remove the politicians from the process. Several states have done this with good results. Canada has done this for years and doesn’t have this problem at all.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 14:12
Do you happen to know off-hand which states? I’d like to take a look at that.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 14:27
It was done in California to good effect. There were other’s but I don’t know which of them commissioned citizen redistricting panels, sorry.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 14:37
thanks
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 21:43
OK, so I just got a quick look from a piece on Rachel Maddow about the FL ruling. Florida, CA., AZ., WA., ID., OR. are the states that used citizen redistricting panels in some form.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 10:08
Here is a crazy idea, how about districts following county lines…period. we have these contrived districts now and we have heavily Dem districts right next to heavily Rep districts. Why not take the influence out of it and just follow existing county boundaries?
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 10:08
Here is a crazy idea, how about districts following county lines…period. we have these contrived districts now and we have heavily Dem districts right next to heavily Rep districts. Why not take the influence out of it and just follow existing county boundaries?
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 12:44
Good idea for its simplicity but the problem comes from equally apportioning voters to each legislative district.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 12:53
great point, but combining counties can at least come close to apportionment and there is nothing partisan about a county boundary line. Seems like an imperfect (and there is no perfect solution) but logical way to simply remove politics from districting.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 13:04
Yes, natural boundaries should be the basis, coupled to total population count in each legislative district. That’s the point for re-apportioning following each census.
The logical way to remove politics from this is to remove the politicians from the process. Several states have done this with good results. Canada has done this for years and doesn’t have this problem at all.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 14:12
Do you happen to know off-hand which states? I’d like to take a look at that.
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 14:27
It was done in California to good effect. There were other’s but I don’t know which of them commissioned citizen redistricting panels, sorry.
Jeff Allen July 11th, 2014 at 14:37
thanks
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 21:43
OK, so I just got a quick look from a piece on Rachel Maddow about the FL ruling. Florida, CA., AZ., WA., ID., OR. are the states that used citizen redistricting panels in some form.
Republicans_are_Evil July 11th, 2014 at 10:28
Once gerrymandering is removed, the state will likely flip to Democrat. The Republican Party is in trouble.
Republicans_are_Evil July 11th, 2014 at 10:28
Once gerrymandering is removed, the state will likely flip to Democrat. The Republican Party is in trouble.
NW10 July 11th, 2014 at 10:45
I’ve been posting this elsewhere, but gerrymandering isn’t as big a problem, it’s turnout:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/cutting-the-crap-thegerrymandering-red-herring/
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 12:51
The right typically has better voter turnout in midterms where their “hair on fire” social issues attracts their constituency. But, when the right has control of state legislatures during district redrawing terms they are prone to extreme gerrymandering to keep the state red. Both are problems, one is a simple fix, fair districts that are drawn to non-partisan standards that do not favor one party over another, the other is better Dem candidates and an informed and active electorate.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 11th, 2014 at 10:45
I’ve been posting this elsewhere, but gerrymandering isn’t as big a problem, it’s turnout:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/cutting-the-crap-thegerrymandering-red-herring/
tiredoftea July 11th, 2014 at 12:51
The right typically has better voter turnout in midterms where their “hair on fire” social issues attracts their constituency. But, when the right has control of state legislatures during district redrawing terms they are prone to extreme gerrymandering to keep the state red. Both are problems, one is a simple fix, fair districts that are drawn to non-partisan standards that do not favor one party over another, the other is better Dem candidates and an informed and active electorate.
labman57 July 11th, 2014 at 11:30
Because of their exclusionary, self-serving, compassionless policies and proclamations, Republicans have not been able to garner significant percentages of the votes from key demographic sectors of the electorate. Therefore, they have opted for a different approach — reduce the number of these citizens who are able to vote and/or minimize the impact of their vote.
To that end, we have already seen — and expect to continue to see — Republican-controlled state legislatures renew their efforts to create voter eligibility roadblocks and engage in the deliberate manipulation of election districts so that white conservative, sparsely populated rural regions have a disproportionately larger impact on elections than do multi-ethnic, heavily populated urban centers.
Basing voting district borders on a region’s land area rather than its population size is not only unethical, it defies logic … unless your motivation is to rewrite the rules of American democracy to give your party an unfair advantage.
Using aforementioned gerrymandered districts to determine Electoral Vote allocation in a presidential election is an affront to the fundamental tenets upon which our Great American Experiment is based.
Enter the modern Republican Party, a shining beacon of Machiavellian methodology.
labman57 July 11th, 2014 at 11:30
Because of their exclusionary, self-serving, compassionless policies and proclamations, Republicans have not been able to garner significant percentages of the votes from key demographic sectors of the electorate. Therefore, they have opted for a different approach — reduce the number of these citizens who are able to vote and/or minimize the impact of their vote.
To that end, we have already seen — and expect to continue to see — Republican-controlled state legislatures renew their efforts to create voter eligibility roadblocks and engage in the deliberate manipulation of election districts so that white conservative, sparsely populated rural regions have a disproportionately larger impact on elections than do multi-ethnic, heavily populated urban centers.
Basing voting district borders on a region’s land area rather than its population size is not only unethical, it defies logic … unless your motivation is to rewrite the rules of American democracy to give your party an unfair advantage.
Using aforementioned gerrymandered districts to determine Electoral Vote allocation in a presidential election is an affront to the fundamental tenets upon which our Great American Experiment is based.
Enter the modern Republican Party, a shining beacon of Machiavellian methodology.
Dwendt44 July 11th, 2014 at 12:59
A federal election law requiring a non-partisan or bi-partisan committee draw its districts would be a major step in the right direction.
Dwendt44 July 11th, 2014 at 12:59
A federal election law requiring a non-partisan or bi-partisan committee draw its districts would be a major step in the right direction.
mmaynard119 July 12th, 2014 at 08:33
The GOP has adopted WWE great Ken Patera’s philosophy: Win, if you can. Lose, if you must. But always, ALWAYS cheat.
mmaynard119 July 12th, 2014 at 08:33
The GOP has adopted WWE great Ken Patera’s philosophy: Win, if you can. Lose, if you must. But always, ALWAYS cheat.