• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court denies GOP requests to block new congressional maps in N.C., Pa.

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
74,365
Reaction score
43,611
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Perhaps minority's votes might matter this election after all.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused requests from Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to block new congressional maps approved by courts in those states, meaning the fall elections will be held in districts more favorable to Democrats than the ones created by the GOP-led legislatures.​
North Carolina’s Republican leaders had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to embrace an unprecedented theory that the state’s judiciary could not impose a new map for congressional elections, even though it found the legislature’s version had violated the state’s guarantee of free and fair elections. The U.S. Constitution, they argued, leaves that question in the hands of the legislature, not courts.​
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
74,365
Reaction score
43,611
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Pay wall so... cont'd:

The majority that declined the GOP-led requests did not explain its reasoning, which is often the case in emergency petitions before the court.​
Three of the court’s dissenting conservatives — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said that they would have intervened, that they thought the theory advanced by the challengers was probably correct and that they are eager to consider such a challenge.​
Another conservative, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, expressed interest, too. But he said it was too close to the May 17 primaries to take up the North Carolina case now.​
In the Pennsylvania case, the court turned down a request to put a hold on the state Supreme Court’s decision to impose a map. The action by Democratic members of the elected court came after the Democratic governor vetoed a map passed by the legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. The challenge was brought by Republican voters and candidates.​
In an unsigned order, the U.S. high court said action now was premature, since a federal court is still considering the claim.​
North Carolina is a purple state, with a legislature controlled by Republicans, a Democratic governor and an elected state Supreme Court with four Democrats and three Republicans. Donald Trump won the state in 2020 by a margin of 50 percent to 49 percent over Joe Biden.​
Analysts said the map created by Republican legislators after the 2020 Census would have given the GOP an edge in 10 of 14 congressional districts. Democratic justices on the elected state Supreme Court said the redistricting maps had a partisan tilt “not explained by the political geography of North Carolina.”​
The court concluded the maps “are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of the North Carolina Constitution.” The map it adopted gives the political parties relatively equal chance to win a majority of the seats, analysts said, as does the map adopted by the court in Pennsylvania.​
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The issue turns on the dime of "legislature" definition. Four justices are entertaining a new definition than was the original meaning:


New definition would give a state legislature next to, if not actual, unlimited power in determining the outcome of federal elections. The courts would have no say. This is an activist court that can interpret as seen to fit whatever are their personal beliefs. Conservative constitutional constructionism, re-constructing the Constitution to a politically conservative design.
 
Last edited:

SuperDS77

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
2,313
Reaction score
768
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Perhaps minority's votes might matter this election after all.

Supreme Court denies GOP requests to block new congressional maps in N.C., Pa.The Supreme Court on Monday refused requests from Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to block new congressional maps approved by courts in those states, meaning the fall elections will be held in districts more favorable to Democrats than the ones created by the GOP-led legislatures.
Why is it ok to create districts "more favorable to Democrats" but not districts that are more favorable to Republicans.

Do all "minority's"(sic) vote the same?
 

highroller

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
5,176
Reaction score
3,024
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The issue turns on the dime of "legislature" definition. Four justices are entertaining a new definition than was the original meaning:


New definition would give a state legislature next to, if not actual, unlimited power in determining the outcome of federal elections. The courts would have no say. This is an activist court that can interpret as seen to fit whatever are their personal beliefs. Conservative constitutional constructionism, re-constructing the Constitution to a politically conservative design.
Conservative justices will routinely redefine the constitution to whatever they personally want.

Remember, conservative justices caused the Civil War in 1858.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,475
Reaction score
26,064
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is it ok to create districts "more favorable to Democrats" but not districts that are more favorable to Republicans.

Do all "minority's"(sic) vote the same?
who said what you said is OK? seems you are just makign things up or have no understanding of this topic

gerrymandering is wrong PERIOD ever American should believe in that reality

but saying the districts are more favorable in this case simply means they arent drawn biasedly and unfairly
plenty of maps have favorable or more favorable republican/democratic areas and if thats how it NATURALLY and FAIRLY works out that's fine . . but NOT doing it by slide of hand

here maybe this will help you understand Gerrymandering

gerrymandering.jpg
 

SuperDS77

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
2,313
Reaction score
768
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
who said what you said is OK? seems you are just makign things up or have no understanding of this topic
I quoted "more favorable to democrats", not my words.
gerrymandering is wrong PERIOD ever American should believe in that reality
"Gerrymandering" is completely subjective. On man's "gerrymandering" is another man's "redistricting". There is no real objective way of defining this nebulous term.

but saying the districts are more favorable in this case simply means they arent drawn biasedly and unfairly
plenty of maps have favorable or more favorable republican/democratic areas and if thats how it NATURALLY and FAIRLY works out that's fine . . but NOT doing it by slide of hand
"Fair" and "biased" are not always agreed upon. I believe that it is "fair" that a state draws it's districts based on the current rules of the game. In most states, that is left to the democratically elected legislators. In Michigan, we now have a supposed "balanced" commission of citizens and others that draw the lines. I may not like it, but it is our current law. Most states do not have provisions for judges to essentially draw the maps, which is what seems to be happening.

here maybe this will help you understand Gerrymandering
I do not need the help, but thank you. I completely understand the concept.

Whoever controls the legislature is, by nature, going to lean toward creating a map which favors their party. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. If people don't like it, vote them out so the other side can draw the lines next time.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,475
Reaction score
26,064
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I quoted "more favorable to democrats", not my words.
doesnt matter what you quoted you proved you had no understanding of context and what it meant because what you said made zero sense and nobody made the statment you made
"Gerrymandering" is completely subjective. On man's "gerrymandering" is another man's "redistricting". There is no real objective way of defining this nebulous term.
the chart and math shows otherwise
"Fair" and "biased" are not always agreed upon. I believe that it is "fair" that a state draws it's districts based on the current rules of the game. In most states, that is left to the democratically elected legislators. In Michigan, we now have a supposed "balanced" commission of citizens and others that draw the lines. I may not like it, but it is our current law. Most states do not have provisions for judges to essentially draw the maps, which is what seems to be happening.
again math can do this, your beliefs, like mine or anybody elses are meaningless to the subject
I do not need the help, but thank you. I completely understand the concept.
your original post and this post, proves you factually do
Whoever controls the legislature is, by nature, going to lean toward creating a map which favors their party. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. If people don't like it, vote them out so the other side can draw the lines next time.
again what you see doesnt matter, equality and fairness based on math is what matters instead of cheating
again your welcome
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why is it ok to create districts "more favorable to Democrats" but not districts that are more favorable to Republicans.

Do all "minority's"(sic) vote the same?

As long as the redistricting is done legally, no problem. In this case, the redistricting was not fair according to the courts. Hence, they were finally redrawn by the courts, not a legislative body.

If by "vote the same" you mean vote for Democratic candidates, then, yes, minorities vote the same.
 

SuperDS77

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
2,313
Reaction score
768
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As long as the redistricting is done legally, no problem.
Legally, the state legislature in most states draws the lines of the districts. What does the NC constitution say regarding this?



"
Sec. 3. Senate districts; apportionment of Senators.

The Senators shall be elected from districts. The General Assembly, at the first regular session convening after the return of every decennial census of population taken by order of Congress, shall revise the senate districts and the apportionment of Senators among those districts, subject to the following requirements:

(1) Each Senator shall represent, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, the number of inhabitants that each Senator represents being determined for this purpose by dividing the population of the district that he represents by the number of Senators apportioned to that district;

(2) Each senate district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory;

(3) No county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district;

(4) When established, the senate districts and the apportionment of Senators shall remain unaltered until the return of another decennial census of population taken by order of Congress.



Sec. 4. Number of Representatives.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of 120 Representatives, biennially chosen by ballot.



Sec. 5. Representative districts; apportionment of Representatives.

The Representatives shall be elected from districts. The General Assembly, at the first regular session convening after the return of every decennial census of population taken by order of Congress, shall revise the representative districts and the apportionment of Representatives among those districts, subject to the following requirements:

(1) Each Representative shall represent, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, the number of inhabitants that each Representative represents being determined for this purpose by dividing the population of the district that he represents by the number of Representatives apportioned to that district;

(2) Each representative district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory;

(3) No county shall be divided in the formation of a representative district;

(4) When established, the representative districts and the apportionment of Representatives shall remain unaltered until the return of another decennial census of population taken by order of Congress."

In this case, the redistricting was not fair according to the courts. Hence, they were finally redrawn by the courts, not a legislative body.
I see no references to judges drawing the districts, assuming the guidlines listed above were met.

Who would legitimately have standing to take this to court. I lived in a district that had 80+% voted for the other party, is that "fair" that my preferred candidate had literally no chance?
If by "vote the same" you mean vote for Democratic candidates, then, yes, minorities vote the same.
Really? "Vote the same"? They do not all vote the same. Obviously the percentages are higher for one party, but things change.
 

uptower

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
15,678
Reaction score
11,790
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Perhaps minority's votes might matter this election after all.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused requests from Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to block new congressional maps approved by courts in those states, meaning the fall elections will be held in districts more favorable to Democrats than the ones created by the GOP-led legislatures.​
North Carolina’s Republican leaders had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to embrace an unprecedented theory that the state’s judiciary could not impose a new map for congressional elections, even though it found the legislature’s version had violated the state’s guarantee of free and fair elections. The U.S. Constitution, they argued, leaves that question in the hands of the legislature, not courts.​

I worry that the court (as a body) has cynically allowed a couple of Dem-heavy maps to stand, as a precedent to letting the many more pro-republican maps on their way to SCOTUS to also stand.

But I haven't looked at the split in judges fof this ruling so anyone's free to fill me in.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservative justices will routinely redefine the constitution to whatever they personally want.

Remember, conservative justices caused the Civil War in 1858.

If you're talking about Dred Scott, that was decided in 1857.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Legally, the state legislature in most states draws the lines of the districts. What does the NC constitution say regarding this?



"
Sec. 3. Senate districts; apportionment of Senators.

The Senators shall be elected from districts. The General Assembly, at the first regular session convening after the return of every decennial census of population taken by order of Congress, shall revise the senate districts and the apportionment of Senators among those districts, subject to the following requirements:

(1) Each Senator shall represent, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, the number of inhabitants that each Senator represents being determined for this purpose by dividing the population of the district that he represents by the number of Senators apportioned to that district;

(2) Each senate district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory;

(3) No county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district;

(4) When established, the senate districts and the apportionment of Senators shall remain unaltered until the return of another decennial census of population taken by order of Congress.



Sec. 4. Number of Representatives.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of 120 Representatives, biennially chosen by ballot.



Sec. 5. Representative districts; apportionment of Representatives.

The Representatives shall be elected from districts. The General Assembly, at the first regular session convening after the return of every decennial census of population taken by order of Congress, shall revise the representative districts and the apportionment of Representatives among those districts, subject to the following requirements:

(1) Each Representative shall represent, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, the number of inhabitants that each Representative represents being determined for this purpose by dividing the population of the district that he represents by the number of Representatives apportioned to that district;

(2) Each representative district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory;

(3) No county shall be divided in the formation of a representative district;

(4) When established, the representative districts and the apportionment of Representatives shall remain unaltered until the return of another decennial census of population taken by order of Congress."


I see no references to judges drawing the districts, assuming the guidlines listed above were met.

Who would legitimately have standing to take this to court. I lived in a district that had 80+% voted for the other party, is that "fair" that my preferred candidate had literally no chance?

Really? "Vote the same"? They do not all vote the same. Obviously the percentages are higher for one party, but things change.

Again, "As long as the redistricting is done legally, no problem."

The court had an outside (non-legislative) org draw the congressional boundaries, hence the article headline:

North Carolina judges change congressional boundaries but uphold new legislative lines


Who would have standing and what is fair is what the courts are deciding in these cases.

I don't mean to say that every single person, of any particular kind, vote the same. To clarify, the majority of minorities vote Dem. That's a fact. Why do you think the Rep state legislatures are redrawing districts the way they do?
 
Top Bottom