Remember when gerrymandering by Democrats was what the majority party got to do?
Back in 1984, I moved to Texas and decided to get acquainted with my congressional district. Therefore, I took a trip over to the local GOP office, introduced myself, and offered my help.
I asked the precinct chairman to show me the boundaries of Representative Martin Frost's district, or the place where I was now living. He took me to the wall and showed me the map. The conversation went sort of like this:
I said: "That's a crazy looking district, isn't it? One side of the street is in one district and the neighbors are in the other."
He said: "Welcome to Texas. The Democrat legislature drew it up just perfect so that Frost could win."
I guess I got a good lesson in gerrymandering. By the way, Mr. Frost was gerrymandered out of his district when the GOP took over Texas.
The Democrats are apparently looking for another reason to explain how President Obama, the man of the high approval rates, or so they tell us, could lose 1,000 state seats under his watch. How could such a popular man not deliver seats? It must be something crooked!
They can't blame the Russians, so I guess blaming gerrymandering is the next best thing.
According to The New York Times, the Democrats are going back to the courts to get some help:
The hand-to-hand political combat in House elections on Tuesday in Georgia and last week in Kansas had the feel of the first rounds of an epic battle next year for control of the House of Representatives and the direction of national politics as the Trump presidency unfolds.
But for all the zeal on the ground, none of it may matter as much as a case heading to the Supreme Court, one that could transform political maps from City Hall to Congress — often to Democrats’ benefit.
A bipartisan group of voting rights advocates says the lower house of the Wisconsin Legislature, the State Assembly, was gerrymandered by its Republican majority before the 2012 election — so artfully, in fact, that Democrats won a third fewer Assembly seats than Republicans despite prevailing in the popular vote. In November, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a panel of federal judges agreed.
Now the Wisconsin case is headed to a Supreme Court that has repeatedly said that extreme partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but has never found a way to decide which ones cross the line.
Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say. We hope they will do what they did not with abortion and marriage. In other words, let the state legislatures figure this out.
The Democrats' real problem, between the coasts, is the number of ethnic districts that result in other districts with large non-minority populations. The result is that they win certain districts easily and can't compete in the others. I don't know what they call that, but it is their real problem.
Let the state legislatures figure this out – the same way they did when Representative Martin Frost had a perfectly crafted district when the Democrats ran Texas.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/remember_when_gerrymandering_by_democrats_was_what_the_majority_party_got_to_do.html#ixzz4f3ii4fd6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I asked the precinct chairman to show me the boundaries of Representative Martin Frost's district, or the place where I was now living. He took me to the wall and showed me the map. The conversation went sort of like this:
I said: "That's a crazy looking district, isn't it? One side of the street is in one district and the neighbors are in the other."
He said: "Welcome to Texas. The Democrat legislature drew it up just perfect so that Frost could win."
I guess I got a good lesson in gerrymandering. By the way, Mr. Frost was gerrymandered out of his district when the GOP took over Texas.
The Democrats are apparently looking for another reason to explain how President Obama, the man of the high approval rates, or so they tell us, could lose 1,000 state seats under his watch. How could such a popular man not deliver seats? It must be something crooked!
They can't blame the Russians, so I guess blaming gerrymandering is the next best thing.
According to The New York Times, the Democrats are going back to the courts to get some help:
The hand-to-hand political combat in House elections on Tuesday in Georgia and last week in Kansas had the feel of the first rounds of an epic battle next year for control of the House of Representatives and the direction of national politics as the Trump presidency unfolds.
But for all the zeal on the ground, none of it may matter as much as a case heading to the Supreme Court, one that could transform political maps from City Hall to Congress — often to Democrats’ benefit.
A bipartisan group of voting rights advocates says the lower house of the Wisconsin Legislature, the State Assembly, was gerrymandered by its Republican majority before the 2012 election — so artfully, in fact, that Democrats won a third fewer Assembly seats than Republicans despite prevailing in the popular vote. In November, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a panel of federal judges agreed.
Now the Wisconsin case is headed to a Supreme Court that has repeatedly said that extreme partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but has never found a way to decide which ones cross the line.
Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say. We hope they will do what they did not with abortion and marriage. In other words, let the state legislatures figure this out.
The Democrats' real problem, between the coasts, is the number of ethnic districts that result in other districts with large non-minority populations. The result is that they win certain districts easily and can't compete in the others. I don't know what they call that, but it is their real problem.
Let the state legislatures figure this out – the same way they did when Representative Martin Frost had a perfectly crafted district when the Democrats ran Texas.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/remember_when_gerrymandering_by_democrats_was_what_the_majority_party_got_to_do.html#ixzz4f3ii4fd6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Great article. So many people on this site seem to think gerrymandering was invented by Tom delay.
Exactly! And until the 2000 and 2010 census and redistricting cycles they felt there was nothing wrong with it. Now that they have been in the minority in the house 18 of the last 22 years and lost control of most state legislatures too in that time, it's suddenly wrong.
Davis v. Bandemer , 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable , but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues.
The National Republican Committee filed an amicus brief in support of the Indiana Democrats, [1] Democrats in the California house and senate filed briefs supporting the Republican redistricting plan. [2]
Davis v. Bandemer 478 U.S. 109 (1986)
How about we go back to the original 1 rep for every 30,000 and do away with districts? Think of the fun to be had then.
The constitution does not mandate districts, it leaves it to the States to decide.
The state can decide how to allocate its local, city, state, and federal districts within its borders. The determination as to how many representatives each states gets is decided by the census, a federal undertaking.
Correct. But districts are still not a mandate. You could have at large voting if you wanted.
A state with a single representative is at large.
You could have 20 at large in a state with 20 if you wanted. Again, districts are not a constitutional mandate. The states can make it anything they want.
So California could have 53 separate state wide elections for its congressional representatives and they'd all represent the whole state?
If that is how California decided to do it, yeah.
I remember talking to Perrie about gerrymandering a few months ago , and like the idea she has , for the federal representation , since the number is determined by both the census , and how many members the house is allotted , so states can gain or lose reps dependant on population shifts, use a simple grid map, each district except the odd shaped borders are all the same size the odd shaped borders have the same square milage as a perfectly square one. that way you don't have a ruptured duck shaped congressional district, the only ones this wouldn't affect is those states with the bare minimum of 1 single member of the house of reps.
I wish it would end on both sides