OK, I'll take your word on this, since I am not well versed in this. Will study it, but it's more than likely you are correct.
They are initially appealing for a stay: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_8
Actually, after debating with Harshaw, I think he is right, so I have to disagree with you on appealing Federal seats, and I already said no appeal on State seats, so I disagree with you here too.
That is what I just said. It's a request for a stay, not an "appeal." And it's not an appeal of the general ruling that the districts are unconstitutional.
We can revisit the discussion should they actually file for a stay, an appeal, or request for stay pending appeal.
There is nothing that prohibits a decision of a state Supreme Court from being appealed to the Federal Courts: Appeals | United States Courts. Whether they accept it or not is a different question.
If you believe there is, then please share it.
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
They must be expecting something real important to happen before 2020 to justify the expense, like maybe the midterms coming up this year? :shock: ... :mrgreen:
I don't know Pol. But for me, it makes no sense to wait 8 years when in 2 more the whole thing will have to be done again. I thought perhaps the Democrats finally took over the state legislature last election, but that isn't the case. But I did read this:
Legislative districts are drawn every ten years, following the U.S. Census. Districts are drawn by a five-member commission, of which four members are the majority and minority leaders of each house (or their delegates). The fifth member, who chairs the committee, is appointed by the other four and may not be an elected or appointed official. If the leadership cannot decide on a fifth member, the State Supreme Court may appoint him or her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_General_Assembly
It seems the drawings of the districts were done pretty much on a bipartisan basis if the above is correct. That makes this whole thing weird.
1966, One Man, One Vote[edit]
As was the case in other states where rural legislators hung on to power despite changes in state demographics, North Carolina eventually had to redefine its method of electing house members and to reapportion congressional seats, which was supposed to be done after every decennial census. At a time of civil rights legislation to end segregation (Civil Rights Act of 1964) and enforce the constitutional right to vote for African Americans and other minorities (Voting Rights Act of 1965), the US Supreme Court made rulings that resulted in corrections to state legislature representation and apportionment in several states.
Starting in 1966 (in the wake of Reynolds v. Sims, a US Supreme Court case establishing the principle of one man, one vote), members of the North Carolina State House were required to be elected from districts defined on the basis of roughly equal population, rather than from geographic counties. The county basis had resulted in a longstanding rural bias in the legislature. The new urban populations, including minorities and immigrants, were historically underrepresented in terms of legislative seats and funding, although the state's demographics and population had become increasingly urbanized. The court's ruling required changes also in other states with similar practices. The changes allowed full representation for the first time from some urban and more densely settled areas. It also meant that counties with low populations lost the chance to elect a resident member to the legislature for the first time in state history.
In the landmark Shelby County v. Holder case, Supreme Court judges invalidated sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thereby freeing individual states to "change their election laws without advance federal approval."[15][16][17] In August 12, 2013 Republican Governor Pat McCrory signed omnibus election law bill—House Bill 589[18] which added requirements for voting such as photo identification.[18] [19] In July 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the restrictive election laws.[20]
Not necessarily.Making them "more fair" for democrats is still gerrymandering.
Interesting.
Well, here's the same wiki page for NC, and the SCOTUS just stayed the lower court decision that the NC redistricting was illegal. It is, in fact, bald-faced partisan gerrymandering. Whether you think blatant power grabs like that are legal (and whether the courts do) doesn't take the smell out of the carpet.
SCOTUS Issues Stay of Lower Court Ruling on NC Congressional Districts - NC Capitol Connection
Here's a little NC history from that wiki :
Interesting.
Well, here's the same wiki page for NC, and the SCOTUS just stayed the lower court decision that the NC redistricting was illegal. It is, in fact, bald-faced partisan gerrymandering. Whether you think blatant power grabs like that are legal (and whether the courts do) doesn't take the smell out of the carpet.
SCOTUS Issues Stay of Lower Court Ruling on NC Congressional Districts - NC Capitol Connection
Here's a little NC history from that wiki :
As someone who lives in PA, I hope they don't put a stay on it.SCOTUS did not stay the NC decision. They stayed the timing for the implementation of that decision. Big difference.
SCOTUS did not stay the NC decision. They stayed the timing for the implementation of that decision. Big difference.
gerrymandering can take many different forms. It used to be down here, 30 years ago in Georgia, each county was give so many state legislatures depending on its population. The county I lived in had four with four distinct districts. But when a Republican won one of the districts, the Democratic legislature went to countywide elections. In other words, everyone in the county voted for four representatives, thus after the next election, all four were once again Democrats.
We did that for around ten years before the courts ruled the multi member districts unconstitutional and back to four separate districts we went. It was one of the few times where a court ruling actually favored the Republicans. Finally in 2002, for the first time ever, Georgia elected its first Republican governor to go along with both chambers of our state legislature. Georgia's been republican ever since.
My dad's family is from GA. It was to the right socially even when I was a kid - and that was during LBJ. I imagine it's shifting as people come and go.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution
The ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was that partisan gerrymandering violates the state Constitution. We shall soon find out if supporters of states rights in SCOTUS actually believe in states rights.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution
As someone who lives in PA, I hope they don't put a stay on it.
There are at least 9-10 months until the next big election, I think that should be enough time to implement new districts...
Not sure.What if the next big election were in May and the candidate deadline to file was in early March. Would that be enough time?
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution
The ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was that partisan gerrymandering violates the state Constitution. We shall soon find out if supporters of states rights in SCOTUS actually believe in states rights.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court throws out state's congressional map, ruling that gerrymandering violates constitution
Didn't we just have a North Carolina ruling by the SCOTUS on this very subject? The Constitution gives the power the state legislatures unless at such a time congress enacts a law to make or alter such legislation. The power to eliminate gerrymandering lies with each state legislature or with congress if congress passes a law to do just that.
It is my understand California went to an independent commission to draw their lines. It can be done. But usually the party in power in each states sees an opportunity to increase their congressional power within those states and won't make gerrymandering illegal or outlaw it. Having the ability regardless of party to increase the power of the party is too much for most states to pass up.
Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York after the last census because they could. The same holds true for Texas and North Carolina by the republicans. Besides, we already have federally mandated gerrymandering in what is known a majority minority districts. For the SCOTUS to rule that gerrymandering is illegal or unconstitutional, that would mean an end to majority minority districts as well.
States rights, each state has the right to draw their districts as each state legislature wants. At least according to the U.S. Constitution. as for Pennsylvania and its constitution, I don't know. But why would one side here wait 8 years to challenge the drawings of the districts? Makes no sense when a new census is due in 2020 and districts will once again have to be redrawn.
Pa. Supreme Court strikes down congressional map as unconstitutional, orders change before May primary
It will be filed by the end of the week.
I thought they did too but I think it was a 3 judge panel. Whose ruling the SCOTUS just put on hold most likely to be decided early summer time when they rule on two other gerrymandering cases coming their way ahead of North Carolina's.
Actually, after debating with Harshaw, I think he is right, so I have to disagree with you on appealing Federal seats, and I already said no appeal on State seats, so I disagree with you here too.
Not sure.
Possibly - I sometimes think that the speed of our processes could be greatly improved with the right changes.
It might require a bigger effort than most want to make, however.
Isn't there software out there to draw district lines according to whatever parameters are assigned?
It's really the debate over those parameters that causes the time constraint.
Although the implementation part might be a problem, what with voters being in new districts and such, but that always happens with redistricting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?