Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Redistricitng?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Redistricitng?

    I noticed that two States offered ballot initiatives removing redistricting authority from the legislatures. In both Ohio and California, these measure were defeated. Looking for insight as to why.
    Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

  • #2
    honest guess, people in small districts don't trust the large areas not to swallow em up.

    Official Sponsor of Marco Gonzales and the Productive Out!!!


    Said the Quangle Wangle Quee

    Comment


    • #3
      Those who have the safe districts sure don't want to make it hard to keep their jobs.
      Party has nothing to do with it.

      Republicans supported CA's Referendum
      Democrats supported Ohio's.

      They should make it a lot tougher to Gerrymander. Politicians shouldn't have that much control over their own jobs.
      Billikens.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe they didn't like the options presented to them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Perhaps, I am not familiar with the specifics of each plan.

          I just say that with Districting, they should appoint a commission with 2/3 consensus from the State Legislature. Forcing more responsive and less bias plans.
          Billikens.com

          Comment


          • #6
            QUOTE(SluSignGuy @ Nov 9 2005, 10:43 AM) Quoted post


            Republicans supported CA's Referendum
            Democrats supported Ohio's.

            They should make it a lot tougher to Gerrymander. Politicians shouldn't have that much control over their own jobs.
            [/b][/quote]

            Well I understand why different parties were against the initiatives, but I'm not sure why everyday folks were.

            Supreme Court will take up the Texas re-destricting next year, with Roberts to recuse himself.

            I've already put my money down for Scalia and Thomas to rubber stamp Republican re-destricting.
            From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.

            For more than 20 years I have endeavored-indeed, I have struggled-along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural & substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor.


            I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed.

            The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

            Comment


            • #7
              QUOTE(ppg shg @ Nov 9 2005, 11:51 AM) Quoted post

              QUOTE(SluSignGuy @ Nov 9 2005, 10:43 AM) Quoted post


              Republicans supported CA's Referendum
              Democrats supported Ohio's.

              They should make it a lot tougher to Gerrymander. Politicians shouldn't have that much control over their own jobs.
              [/b][/quote]

              Well I understand why different parties were against the initiatives, but I'm not sure why everyday folks were.

              Supreme Court will take up the Texas re-destricting next year, with Roberts to recuse himself.

              I've already put my money down for Scalia and Thomas to rubber stamp Republican re-destricting.
              [/b][/quote]

              The courts shouldn't have any say in this. When redistricting happens, each party knows likely the partisan sway of the ruling court. So, for example, if there is a really democrat-bias districting plan, that should be illegal, with a democratic court. The democrats will likely get to keep their plan. If the democrats have to face a Republican court, only then will they make a more fair plan.

              I am actually doing a policy proposal for a scholarship, partially on this topic. I would amend the Constitution to do the following:
              QUOTE

              Amendment XXVIII
              Section 1. The seventeenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
              Section 2. Should a State divide its Representatives by geographic boundaries, such boundaries are to be created and approved by a majority of an appointed group of persons within each State. This group, of an even number, is to be appointed, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, by the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
              Section 3. No State shall send a Representative to the House of Representatives if such Representative is not elected in accordance with this amendment.
              [/b][/quote]

              I would repeal the 17th, because its passage destroyed the link between the federal and state governments (but that is a whole other topic).

              With Section 3 of my amendment, I force State Legislatures to pass bi-partisan plans, which are proven to be more responsive to the electorate.
              Billikens.com

              Comment


              • #8
                QUOTE(SluSignGuy @ Nov 9 2005, 11:05 AM) Quoted post


                The courts shouldn't have any say in this. When redistricting happens, each party knows likely the partisan sway of the ruling court. So, for example, if there is a really democrat-bias districting plan, that should be illegal, with a democratic court. The democrats will likely get to keep their plan. If the democrats have to face a Republican court, only then will they make a more fair plan.

                [/b][/quote]

                That's interesting. I've never heard someone argue that the courts should not try and uphold the fundamental right to vote, which encompasses the concept of 1 man, 1 vote, but what the hey, let's let the majority of 51% gerrymander representation to 100%.

                You know not all state judges run in partisan elections, so how are you going to figure out if it's a Democratic Court or Republican Court in those states?
                From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.

                For more than 20 years I have endeavored-indeed, I have struggled-along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural & substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor.


                I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed.

                The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  QUOTE(ppg shg @ Nov 10 2005, 02:17 AM) Quoted post

                  QUOTE(SluSignGuy @ Nov 9 2005, 11:05 AM) Quoted post


                  The courts shouldn't have any say in this. When redistricting happens, each party knows likely the partisan sway of the ruling court. So, for example, if there is a really democrat-bias districting plan, that should be illegal, with a democratic court. The democrats will likely get to keep their plan. If the democrats have to face a Republican court, only then will they make a more fair plan.

                  [/b][/quote]

                  That's interesting. I've never heard someone argue that the courts should not try and uphold the fundamental right to vote, which encompasses the concept of 1 man, 1 vote, but what the hey, let's let the majority of 51% gerrymander representation to 100%.

                  You know not all state judges run in partisan elections, so how are you going to figure out if it's a Democratic Court or Republican Court in those states?
                  [/b][/quote]

                  I am not advocating for the state legislatures of 51% of the vote to have complete control. With the court statement, I was trying to make the point that even though courts may be seen as independent, they often aren't. You can figure out if a court is Republican or Democratic leaning by how they rule and by who they are appointed by. Basically, state legislatures can forsee whether or not a court will be favorable to their plan, and then they will adjust their plan accordingly.

                  What I suggest, as is in my Amendment, is that State Legislatures (with 2/3 consensus) be required to appoint commissions. This way, odds are very slim that the commission is going to be very partisan because both sides are going to have to agree to who is on this commission. If they can't agree, then the state doesn't get representation in the House. This is a nice little enforcement mechanism to make the state legislators play nice.
                  Billikens.com

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X