Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Battle Over Voting Rights (also Gerrymandering)

18485878990

Posts

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.
    I don't get it. Sure, they'd fail with the state court, but Roberts and company have explicitly said that parties can gerrymander all they like, so their efforts would likely be approved there.

    They would ha e to overturn their previous ruling for that.

    What was that ruling again?

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    edited September 4
    I believe they ruled that state districts were outside of their jurisdiction, and solely the responsibility of the states.

    chrisnl on
    steam_sig.png
    GnizmoMoridin889shrykeJragghenBlackDragon480ArbitraryDescriptoremp123Man in the MistsFencingsaxCantideLord_AsmodeusLostNinjaspool32HefflingJulius
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I believe they ruled that state districts were outside of their jurisdiction, and solely the responsibility of the states.

    I'm sure they would find a way to strike down this ruling while also saying their hands are tied because they have no qualms at this point.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
    DisruptedCapitalistkimeYamiB.Gnome-InterruptusYoutube
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Yeah, they've contradicted their jurisprudence within like... The same week. I don't think they're going to bind themselves based on stuff they said months ago

    steam_sig.png
    kimeMegaMekYamiB.CommunistCowYoutube
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.
    I don't get it. Sure, they'd fail with the state court, but Roberts and company have explicitly said that parties can gerrymander all they like, so their efforts would likely be approved there.

    They would ha e to overturn their previous ruling for that.

    What was that ruling again?

    Redistricting is a political question and basically not a thing that SCOTUS should touch barring prohibited motivations behind it (Religion/Race). If it happens to discriminate by religion/race but it wasn't the motivation then that's just fine.

    I don't really recall but I think this is one area where state courts have a lot more latitude to make rulings like this. Especially if founded on their states constitution.

    Fencingsaxspool32
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited September 4
    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.
    I don't get it. Sure, they'd fail with the state court, but Roberts and company have explicitly said that parties can gerrymander all they like, so their efforts would likely be approved there.

    The ruling was based on the NC's state Constitution, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.

    Especially since their ruling said that the federal courts have no place deciding redistricting cases unless there is a law by Congress to tell them what to prevent.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
    monikerFencingsax
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.
    I don't get it. Sure, they'd fail with the state court, but Roberts and company have explicitly said that parties can gerrymander all they like, so their efforts would likely be approved there.

    The ruling was based on the NC's state Constitution, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.

    Especially since their ruling said that the federal courts have no place deciding redistricting cases unless there is a law by Congress to tell them what to prevent.

    Yep. SCOTUS said that partisan gerrymanders are non-justiciable (outside the role of the Court as a Political question rather than a question of Law. Equal Representation under Census apportionment being the Law is neither here nor there) bit that doesn't matter when the State of North Carolina's Constitution is a question the State Courts in North Carolina can consider. SCOTUS is irrelevant for that.

    Millshryke
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    If this stands, I wonder if we start seeing referendums to make small amendments to other states' constitutions (that don't contain free and fair language). While GOP gerrymandered states legislatures would never go for it, I know a lot of states allow referendums, and honestly, with the uninformed electorate, it might possible to get your plurality red state voters to vote for "free and fair elections". Then again, would also have to survive those states' Supreme Courts, too, but at least gives a hope or plan to start alleviating this bullshit over the next 10-20 years.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited September 4
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    If this stands, I wonder if we start seeing referendums to make small amendments to other states' constitutions (that don't contain free and fair language). While GOP gerrymandered states legislatures would never go for it, I know a lot of states allow referendums, and honestly, with the uninformed electorate, it might possible to get your plurality red state voters to vote for "free and fair elections". Then again, would also have to survive those states' Supreme Courts, too, but at least gives a hope or plan to start alleviating this bullshit over the next 10-20 years.

    Districting reform tends to win any time it gets on the ballot, no matter the local politics. It's insanely easy to sell to the general public, and you look pretty bad trying to actively oppose it.

    The problem is usually getting through whatever process your state has for getting on the ballot.

    a5ehren on
    MillASimPersonMoridin889SpoitFencingsaxSkeithshrykeLord_AsmodeusCommunistCowHefflingDaenris
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    If this stands, I wonder if we start seeing referendums to make small amendments to other states' constitutions (that don't contain free and fair language). While GOP gerrymandered states legislatures would never go for it, I know a lot of states allow referendums, and honestly, with the uninformed electorate, it might possible to get your plurality red state voters to vote for "free and fair elections". Then again, would also have to survive those states' Supreme Courts, too, but at least gives a hope or plan to start alleviating this bullshit over the next 10-20 years.

    Odds are if you can do a referendum to add "free and fair elections", you can do one to force hard rules against partisan gerrymandering, or set up a redistricting committee and take politics out of the equation entirely.

    steam_sig.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    "Fuck gerrymandering," is one of the few sane bipartisan issues still around that the GOP has had little success at chipping away at. I believe they've tried, but no one likes the idea of a well financed shit weasel being able to construct a fiefdom that is their unless they leave or really shit the bed in.

    a5ehrenMan in the MistsFencingsaxCantidespool32
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    If this stands, I wonder if we start seeing referendums to make small amendments to other states' constitutions (that don't contain free and fair language). While GOP gerrymandered states legislatures would never go for it, I know a lot of states allow referendums, and honestly, with the uninformed electorate, it might possible to get your plurality red state voters to vote for "free and fair elections". Then again, would also have to survive those states' Supreme Courts, too, but at least gives a hope or plan to start alleviating this bullshit over the next 10-20 years.

    Districting reform tends to win any time it gets on the ballot, no matter the local politics. It's insanely easy to sell to the general public, and you look pretty bad trying to actively oppose it.

    The problem is usually getting through whatever process your state has for getting on the ballot.

    That's just the first problem; the second problem is making it stick. Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment by ballot measure to ban gerrymandering and the GOP legislature and governor tried to gut it anyway. That they failed only due to their own laziness and stupidity demonstrates that they're perfectly willing to ignore rule of law to keep being the rulers.

    Commander ZoomJragghenBlackDragon480DarkPrimusmonikerMan in the MistsFencingsaxGnome-Interruptusshrykeemp123Lord_AsmodeusCommunistCowTNTrooperMoridin889ShortyMartini_PhilosopherHacksaw
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Or florida having a pretty decisive referendum to renfranchise felons only for DeSantis to go Nope, not going to do that

    steam_sig.png
    MorganVMan in the MistsCommander ZoomFencingsaxsilence1186monikerN1tSt4lkerMayabirdGnome-InterruptusLord Palingtonshrykeemp123CantideLord_AsmodeusCommunistCowMoridin889ShortyLovelyYamiB.Martini_PhilosopherHacksaw
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited September 6
    Mayabird wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    If this stands, I wonder if we start seeing referendums to make small amendments to other states' constitutions (that don't contain free and fair language). While GOP gerrymandered states legislatures would never go for it, I know a lot of states allow referendums, and honestly, with the uninformed electorate, it might possible to get your plurality red state voters to vote for "free and fair elections". Then again, would also have to survive those states' Supreme Courts, too, but at least gives a hope or plan to start alleviating this bullshit over the next 10-20 years.

    Districting reform tends to win any time it gets on the ballot, no matter the local politics. It's insanely easy to sell to the general public, and you look pretty bad trying to actively oppose it.

    The problem is usually getting through whatever process your state has for getting on the ballot.

    That's just the first problem; the second problem is making it stick. Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment by ballot measure to ban gerrymandering and the GOP legislature and governor tried to gut it anyway. That they failed only due to their own laziness and stupidity demonstrates that they're perfectly willing to ignore rule of law to keep being the rulers.

    As someone who lives in Missouri, I'm reasonably confident it will stick around past 2020: Clean Missouri was an amendment, and proposed state constitutional amendments, whether it was a petition or a legislative bill, requires a public vote.

    So yeah, go ahead and try to convince Missourians to repeal something they voted for at 2 to 1 only 2 years ago.

    (Especially since it could be twisted as an attempt to repeal Clean Missouri as a whole, which included a bunch of ethics reforms that were at least as popular as the redistricting part was.)

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
    ElvenshaeBlackDragon480FencingsaxMartini_Philosopher
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    In primary news of another sort, the Republicans in four states are planning to cancel theirs:
    Four states are poised to cancel their 2020 GOP presidential primaries and caucuses, a move that would cut off oxygen to Donald Trump’s long-shot primary challengers.

    Republican parties in South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas are expected to finalize the cancellations in meetings this weekend, according to three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CommunistCowNo-QuarterCantidoFencingsax
  • Senna1Senna1 Registered User regular
    I'm sure they'll be JUST as much angst from Conservatives over this as there was from them over the DNC "rigging" the 2016 primaries for HRC.

    Certainly such blatant hypocrisy would be inconceivable...


    Hahaha, oh I needed a good laugh.

    SleepAngelHedgieGnome-InterruptusOrcaBlackDragon480CantideTicaldfjamLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeSpoitNo-QuarterCantidoTNTrooperMoridin889FencingsaxMan in the Mistsemp123SkeithCelestialBadgerStabbity StyleLovelyshrykeDaenrisMartini_PhilosopherHacksaw
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited September 6
    Senna1 wrote: »
    I'm sure they'll be JUST as much angst from Conservatives over this as there was from them over the DNC "rigging" the 2016 primaries for HRC.

    Certainly such blatant hypocrisy would be inconceivable...


    Hahaha, oh I needed a good laugh.

    From the article this does not seem to be a uniquely GOP thing. Apparently dems have done it in previous elections.
    Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

    South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

    As a country we kind of suck at democracy.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
    destroyah87XaquinmonikerGnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleJulius
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Senna1 wrote: »
    I'm sure they'll be JUST as much angst from Conservatives over this as there was from them over the DNC "rigging" the 2016 primaries for HRC.

    Certainly such blatant hypocrisy would be inconceivable...


    Hahaha, oh I needed a good laugh.

    From the article this does not seem to be a uniquely GOP thing. Apparently dems have done it in previous elections.
    Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

    South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

    As a country we kind of suck at democracy.

    Yes. But in this case, a primary is a political party function, not an actual election. If a party doesn't want to put forward an alternate candidate (or any candidate for that matter) for an election, it's their choice.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    Orcadestroyah87Jebus314Moridin889FencingsaxMan in the MistsStabbity StyleJuliusNobeardHacksaw
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    How often do even halfway serious challengers to a sitting President run? Like you always get the people that are kind of on the fringe of their respective party and have no realistic shot at even breaking 25%, but serious challengers to a sitting President (of the same party) are extremely rare.

    I mean sure, I'd love to see the Republicans spend money on primaries, and I'd like to see what sort of approach Republican challengers would take against Trump. I'm not going to cry any tears over this entirely expected course of action.

    steam_sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    How often do even halfway serious challengers to a sitting President run? Like you always get the people that are kind of on the fringe of their respective party and have no realistic shot at even breaking 25%, but serious challengers to a sitting President (of the same party) are extremely rare.

    I mean sure, I'd love to see the Republicans spend money on primaries, and I'd like to see what sort of approach Republican challengers would take against Trump. I'm not going to cry any tears over this entirely expected course of action.

    Last serious challenger from the same party to an incumbent president was Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Fencingsax
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    How often do even halfway serious challengers to a sitting President run? Like you always get the people that are kind of on the fringe of their respective party and have no realistic shot at even breaking 25%, but serious challengers to a sitting President (of the same party) are extremely rare.

    I mean sure, I'd love to see the Republicans spend money on primaries, and I'd like to see what sort of approach Republican challengers would take against Trump. I'm not going to cry any tears over this entirely expected course of action.

    Last serious challenger from the same party to an incumbent president was Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980.

    Arguably Buchanan v Bush the Greater in '92. He may not have won a State, but he got a quarter of the vote.

    CommunistCow
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Senna1 wrote: »
    I'm sure they'll be JUST as much angst from Conservatives over this as there was from them over the DNC "rigging" the 2016 primaries for HRC.

    Certainly such blatant hypocrisy would be inconceivable...


    Hahaha, oh I needed a good laugh.

    From the article this does not seem to be a uniquely GOP thing. Apparently dems have done it in previous elections.
    Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

    South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

    As a country we kind of suck at democracy.

    Not that it really matters, but most of the other examples were likely done for cost saving reasons, rather than some kind of anti-democratic way of ensuring only the chosen candidate made it to the general election.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, but let's be honest Trump is a petty fucker and he and his cronies have been making noise about how they didn't like the idea that someone might challenge him for some time. To the point where even some RNC people were worried that cancelling primaries to protect Trump could backfire on them.

    Fencingsax
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    So remember all that stuff in NC and that rat fucker Hofeller.We might have underestimated how much of rat fucker he was and it's not hard to see why his daughter might have just decided to hand off his whole hard drive. I'm really hoping the revelations that come out of that lead to more cases where the GOP gets it's ass handed to it in court, and then gets a further beat down in elections, when they are no longer able to rely on rigging the system. I also have to wonder if there are enough details in there to start challenge some of the voter ID laws because I'm getting the impression he had data on there that more or less proved the whole intent behind voter IDs. Hell, might even find enough evidence in there to go after the idiocy that insists on only letting people vote on election day and not have early voting.

    FencingsaxElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusGnome-InterruptusMan in the Mists
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    Tentatively good news out of North Carolina?


    NC State court orders the legislature to redraw their shitty maps!

    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.

    Can't wait to see how many districts the state GOP is willing to give up, because that ruling isn't going anywhere now.

    The sheer hypocrisy of this guy saying the Dems are trying to use the courts to subvert democracy is unbelievable. How do these people even function? Remind me again how many seats were left empty under Obama because the Republican Senate (McConnell) refused to have a vote? How many have been filled under this president that haven’t even had the bare minimum qualifications (haven’t a few not even had law degrees?)?

    ArbitraryDescriptor
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    Tentatively good news out of North Carolina?


    NC State court orders the legislature to redraw their shitty maps!

    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.

    Can't wait to see how many districts the state GOP is willing to give up, because that ruling isn't going anywhere now.

    The sheer hypocrisy of this guy saying the Dems are trying to use the courts to subvert democracy is unbelievable. How do these people even function? Remind me again how many seats were left empty under Obama because the Republican Senate (McConnell) refused to have a vote? How many have been filled under this president that haven’t even had the bare minimum qualifications (haven’t a few not even had law degrees?)?

    One big hilarity of North Carolina politics is that the Democrats became Republicans during the Southern Strategy era, doubled down on some of their worst bullshit, and now defend themselves with "But the Democrats did it, too!"

    Gnome-InterruptusSpoitArbitraryDescriptorFencingsaxCaptain InertiaKayne Red RobeCelestialBadgerMartini_PhilosopherYoutubeemp123Man in the Mists
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    Tentatively good news out of North Carolina?


    NC State court orders the legislature to redraw their shitty maps!

    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.

    Can't wait to see how many districts the state GOP is willing to give up, because that ruling isn't going anywhere now.

    The sheer hypocrisy of this guy saying the Dems are trying to use the courts to subvert democracy is unbelievable. How do these people even function? Remind me again how many seats were left empty under Obama because the Republican Senate (McConnell) refused to have a vote? How many have been filled under this president that haven’t even had the bare minimum qualifications (haven’t a few not even had law degrees?)?

    Hint: They don't actually ever mean what they say.

    Commander ZoomShortyFencingsaxLovelyMegaMekAistanYoutubeHacksawSkeithMan in the Mists
  • EinzelEinzel Registered User regular
    NC special election tomorrow for the seat Republicans were caught stealing. I'm very happy that we're giving them a second chance to steal it.

    In seriousness, it's a decent possible point in the current political climate.

    MorganV
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    Tentatively good news out of North Carolina?


    NC State court orders the legislature to redraw their shitty maps!

    Annnd:
    The Republican leader of the State Senate, Phil Berger, cast the decision as part of a national Democratic strategy to overturn Republican rule via the courts, but said the Legislature would not appeal the ruling. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal, has six Democratic justices and one Republican.

    Can't wait to see how many districts the state GOP is willing to give up, because that ruling isn't going anywhere now.

    The sheer hypocrisy of this guy saying the Dems are trying to use the courts to subvert democracy is unbelievable. How do these people even function? Remind me again how many seats were left empty under Obama because the Republican Senate (McConnell) refused to have a vote? How many have been filled under this president that haven’t even had the bare minimum qualifications (haven’t a few not even had law degrees?)?

    Number one and number two are both things they are proud of. They deliberately left a huge number of vacancies and then have been deliberately flash-filling them with folks whose only qualification is rabid partisanship.





    This is working exactly as intended. They are sowing seeds of destruction for decades to come.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Gnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480IncenjucarXaquinAimTNTrooperMayabirdjdarksunMegaMekLord_AsmodeusYoutubeHacksawMan in the Mists
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    Would this be the thread to mention how NC Republicans in the state house did half the work Governor's veto of the 2019 fiscal bill by A. Swearing publicly and privately not to try and hold a vote on 9/11 for propriety's sake and to allow members of the house to attend 9/11 memorial services and B. scheduling meetings on how to begin the process of redistricting as previously mandated by state courts at the same time as when they secretly planned to hold the vote, and just not showing up to those meetings leaving NC democratic senior house members stuck in a different location as they held the vote? For reference, of the 120 members of the North Carolina house, only 64 were in the chamber to vote, and out of that only 9 democrats who just happened to have stayed in the building for other business. Almost every damn Republican legislator was in on it, and they all lied.

    I honestly did not think they could sink lower but those goddamn pieces of shit proved me wrong. Even when they get ordered to stop undemocratic practices they use that to do even more egregious undemocratic practices.

    JragghenMorganVFencingsaxshrykeArbitraryDescriptorFryMoridin889LostNinjaLord_AsmodeusGnome-InterruptusCommunistCowMan in the Mists
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Patriots, all of them, making sure that only the votes of real Americans are counted.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    CelestialBadgerYoutube
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    I imagine the court that said they had to redistrict in the first place might be at least a but sympathic to arguments?

    steam_sig.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    I imagine the court that said they had to redistrict in the first place might be at least a but sympathic to arguments?

    Gonna vary based on the state's rules but generally the courts stay away from telling legislative bodies about how to manage themselves as a separation of powers thing.

    This was unethical as hell but the evil fuckers probably made sure it followed the letter of the legislative rules. They have completely burnt up any trust/goodwill/civility in that body.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    Gosh, this could go as high as the Supreme Court!!!

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    I imagine the court that said they had to redistrict in the first place might be at least a but sympathic to arguments?

    Gonna vary based on the state's rules but generally the courts stay away from telling legislative bodies about how to manage themselves as a separation of powers thing.

    This was unethical as hell but the evil fuckers probably made sure it followed the letter of the legislative rules. They have completely burnt up any trust/goodwill/civility in that body.

    Did you see the ruling? They dictated very specific rules about how the redistricting should be done

    steam_sig.png
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    Gosh, this could go as high as the Supreme Court!!!

    I actually think this is a case that the USSC wouldn't take because it's related to how the state legislature is functions. State Supreme Court would be top court.

    monikerBlackDragon480N1tSt4lker
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    No it was not illegal. It violated internal state house policy to intentionally lie to half of the legislative body but any punishment would be... enforced by the legislative body, and that isn't happening.

    monikerBlackDragon480MorganVshrykeYoutubeCommunistCow
  • EinzelEinzel Registered User regular
    Is joke

    MorganV
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there any legal recourse at all?

    I imagine the court that said they had to redistrict in the first place might be at least a but sympathic to arguments?

    Gonna vary based on the state's rules but generally the courts stay away from telling legislative bodies about how to manage themselves as a separation of powers thing.

    This was unethical as hell but the evil fuckers probably made sure it followed the letter of the legislative rules. They have completely burnt up any trust/goodwill/civility in that body.

    Did you see the ruling? They dictated very specific rules about how the redistricting should be done

    Unless I missed something this had little to nothing to do with the redistricting stuff. This was about the budget and overriding the governors veto which they wouldn't be able to do if the democratic members were present.

    Two asshole acts but not really linked. (Unless the budget was somehow tied into redistricting?)

    ArbitraryDescriptorGundiFencingsaxCommunistCow
Sign In or Register to comment.