A Maryland gerrymandering case, this one brought by the Republican Party, after it lost an election in the newly gerrymandered district, was before the Supreme Court this week.
One of the plaintiffs’ arguments is that the redistricting “violated Republican voters’ free-expression and political-association rights.”
Justice Sam Alito had the correct response to that bit of nonsense:
[I]f understand it, I really don’t see how any legislature will ever be able to redistrict
If the Republicans don’t have anything more than whining about losing an election, how can their legitimate gerrymandering complaints be taken seriously?
The Supreme Court heard arguments the other day on an Ohio voter registration law. That law removes voters from the roll if they haven’t voted over a two-year period and don’t respond to a follow-up notice from Ohio’s Secretary of State.
It’s a partisan case from the Left’s perspective: those opposing the law argue, with some justification, that those who live in urban regions (and who happen to vote Democratic) relocate more frequently than do those who live in the ‘burbs and out in the country (and who happen to vote Republican). This would seem to put Democrats at a disadvantage in elections since they’re more likely to have not voted over a two-year period and not responded to the follow-up notice.
North Carolina’s Congressional districts are illegally drawn, says a special three-judge court.
A special three-judge court invalidated the North Carolina map after finding Republicans adopted it for the driving purpose of magnifying the party’s political power beyond its share of the electorate.
I’ll leave aside the disparate impact sewage that local districts must reflect the larger State’s electorate “demographics.” The larger problem is with the underlying premise of gerrymandering: that some groups of Americans need their political power enhanced relative to other groups of Americans because some groups are, in some sense, fewer in numbers than other groups.
This is a preview of
Congressional Districts and Gerrymandering
. Read the full post (332 words, estimated 1:20 mins reading time)
Further on the Supreme Court’s considering a Wisconsin gerrymandering case, and that dredges up some thoughts in my pea brain.
Taking the Federal government as my canonical example, I suggest the following to saucer and blow the whole gerrymandering question. Each State should be divided into squares having substantially equal numbers of citizens resident. Then, starting with four squares sharing a common corner that is at the geographic center of the State, add squares around the four, building outward in that fashion to the State’s borders, deviating from the square and the square’s straight-line sides only at those borders.
The Supreme Court has taken up a Wisconsin gerrymandering case, Whitford v Gill, in which some Liberal plaintiffs claim the State’s Republican legislature went too far in gerrymandering the State’s state legislature districts. The plaintiffs are centering their beef on the idea that Republicans are overrepresented in the State’s legislature compared to State-wide voting tallies; Democrats didn’t get their “fair share” of the seats.
The plaintiffs are targeting Justice Anthony Kennedy in what is likely to be a sharply divided court, and some of Kennedy’s remarks at oral argument are, indeed, troubling.
Certainly these are different from each other in method and often (but not always) in purpose, but is there an important difference were these successful in altering our election outcomes or in raising doubt about those outcomes?
I didn’t think so.
Why, then, are so many who should know better so obstructive of the Federal effort to understand the method and extent of election fraud?
There were nearly 150,000 attempts to penetrate the voter-registration system on Election Day 2016, State Election Commission says
That’s the subhead of Sunday’s Wall Street Journal piece on US Election Hacking Efforts. Illinois was hit as badly:
President Donald Trump has formed his commission to look into national-scale voter fraud, as promised, and that commission has asked each of the several States for a potful of voter roll information. Even though the commission has asked for a broad range of data, it has emphasized that it wants only the data that are publicly available according to the respective States’ laws.
Nevertheless, a significant number of States have chosen to refuse to supply the data. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliff (D), for instance, wondered with a straight face “what voter fraud? Who—us?”
At least Flip Wilson’s routine was funny. The Democrats’ and their Party’s comedy, though, is just sad.
In no particular order, it’s been low-information voters who didn’t get the message that caused Democrats to lose seats in Congress and ultimately caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidential election. Or it was that we’re just too dumb to understand their message. Or it was FBI Director Comey who spiked her campaign. Or it was the Russians who rigged our election. Or it was President-Elect Donald Trump who’s in cahoots with the Russians. Or it became Republican Electors who need to do their moral duty and not vote for Trump. Or it was a mendacious press that had it in for Clinton. And the latest: Bill Clinton’s racist and sexist rant: it was all those angry, white men who didn’t vote for Hillary.
Or so he says, while continuing his partisan and petty attacks on his opponents.
The US will “take action” against Russia for alleged cyberattacks on Democratic officials, President Obama warned Thursday, hours after his spokesman claimed that President-elect Donald Trump “obviously knew” about the breaches and leaks that critics say propelled him to victory in last month’s election.
President Barack Obama’s (D) tough talk about retaliatory action against Russia comes against the backdrop of his Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to retaliate against Russia for its cyber invasions and his own threat of retaliation regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons.
Or sore, childish losers. Or outright dishonesty. That’s the behavior of a couple of Colorado Presidential Electors who are members, also, of the Democratic Party. These two have filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of the State’s law that requires them to vote for the State’s choice in the just concluded Presidential election. The State’s law is a winner-take-all requirement: Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won Colorado, they’re required to cast their Electoral votes for Clinton—but they’re so desperate to block President-Elect Donald Trump, they don’t want to; they want to vote for a third party candidate if they can get enough other Electoral College voters to similarly turn their coats and vote for a common third party candidate to deny Trump 270 Electoral College votes. (Never mind that that would just move the election to the Republican House of Representatives. Logic has never been much of a player for the Left.)