My cousin is COS for a house D and she told me over Christmas they have already been whipped in order to pass about 10x more bills in the first 6 months in session than all R houses have introduced* in their last several sessions in charge
My cousin is COS for a house D and she told me over Christmas they have already been whipped in order to pass about 10x more bills in the first 6 months in session than all R houses have introduced* in their last several sessions in charge
*excluding ACA repeal bills
Sounds like they're laying a good foundation for the next election cycle's messaging. Being in the KS3 district, I can attest to the effectiveness of such messaging against incumbents who've not bothered with bringing home the bacon, so to speak. Yoder was great for carrying the GOP's water but was terrible in making it look like he was doing something for his district.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
My cousin is COS for a house D and she told me over Christmas they have already been whipped in order to pass about 10x more bills in the first 6 months in session than all R houses have introduced* in their last several sessions in charge
*excluding ACA repeal bills
Sounds like they're laying a good foundation for the next election cycle's messaging. Being in the KS3 district, I can attest to the effectiveness of such messaging against incumbents who've not bothered with bringing home the bacon, so to speak. Yoder was great for carrying the GOP's water but was terrible in making it look like he was doing something for his district.
Yeah this tidbit came in a conversation started by me asking how busy she’s been since the election and that I was glad that HR1 was the voting rights bill because it polls well and addresses disadvantages Dems have in elections, but didn’t expect it to pass the senate or Trump.
She said “well actually, we DO plan on passing it, and about 30 other bills people elected us to fix for them, and that they will become law. We have almost the whole session written and whipped already.”
Despite continued noise from the legislature and governor, a number of counties in Florida are saying ‘fuck off or do something so we can sue you’ and registering ex-felons starting on Tuesday
+59
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
My cousin is COS for a house D and she told me over Christmas they have already been whipped in order to pass about 10x more bills in the first 6 months in session than all R houses have introduced* in their last several sessions in charge
*excluding ACA repeal bills
Sounds like they're laying a good foundation for the next election cycle's messaging. Being in the KS3 district, I can attest to the effectiveness of such messaging against incumbents who've not bothered with bringing home the bacon, so to speak. Yoder was great for carrying the GOP's water but was terrible in making it look like he was doing something for his district.
As someone that lives just across the border in MO5, I'd like to thank you and the other voters of KS3 for knocking Yoder out. I heard/saw more of his freaking campaign ads than any other house candidate in KS or MO by a wide margin.
The fact he lost to Sharice Davids, a well qualified, Native American lesbian, that could kick his ass in real life and has actual planned policy goals was just *chef's kiss*.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
My cousin is COS for a house D and she told me over Christmas they have already been whipped in order to pass about 10x more bills in the first 6 months in session than all R houses have introduced* in their last several sessions in charge
*excluding ACA repeal bills
Sounds like they're laying a good foundation for the next election cycle's messaging. Being in the KS3 district, I can attest to the effectiveness of such messaging against incumbents who've not bothered with bringing home the bacon, so to speak. Yoder was great for carrying the GOP's water but was terrible in making it look like he was doing something for his district.
As someone that lives just across the border in MO5, I'd like to thank you and the other voters of KS3 for knocking Yoder out. I heard/saw more of his freaking campaign ads than any other house candidate in KS or MO by a wide margin.
The fact he lost to a well qualified, Native American lesbian, that could kick his ass in real life and has actual planned policy goals was just *chef's kiss*.
As a fellow MO5, I take it you didn't like George Brett showing up gleefully calling himself a "Yoder Voter" six times an hour either?
Article also mentions turning over a precedent only four years old says out loud the thing Roberts has been expressly trying to deny for a while; that SCOTUS nominees (or at least GoP ones) are being picked for their politics, not their judicial expertise. Unless a lower court overturns it first, there is a chance they'll let the lower derision stand and not take up the case.
Hinging it all on Robert's sense of shame is not what I would like at all, obviously, but hopefully it will last past 2020 for a Dem Congress to make redistricting commissions the norm.
Foefaller on
+3
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
So question to the thread: In this age of ubiquitous communications technology there are a myriad of ways to communicate your needs to your elected representatives. Given that - do congressional districts serve any function currently? Besides another lever with which to strip voters of power, I mean. It seems like instead of redistricting, just chucking the districts entirely in favor of proportional representation within the state would give the voters the best representation.
So question to the thread: In this age of ubiquitous communications technology there are a myriad of ways to communicate your needs to your elected representatives. Given that - do congressional districts serve any function currently? Besides another lever with which to strip voters of power, I mean. It seems like instead of redistricting, just chucking the districts entirely in favor of proportional representation within the state would give the voters the best representation.
Or am I missing something here?
The big arguments for are regional, and particularly, minority representation. The people of Kansas City, for example, are going to have different problems and concerns than those who live in Missouri's bootheel, or even St. Louis. And it's a sad, unfortunate truth that if you don't have minority representation in a political body, that body starts to become deaf to minority issues, regardless of party affiliation.
So question to the thread: In this age of ubiquitous communications technology there are a myriad of ways to communicate your needs to your elected representatives. Given that - do congressional districts serve any function currently? Besides another lever with which to strip voters of power, I mean. It seems like instead of redistricting, just chucking the districts entirely in favor of proportional representation within the state would give the voters the best representation.
Or am I missing something here?
Mississippi is ~60% white / ~40% black. If their Districts were entirely At-Large/Statewide there wouldn't even be the single Democratic Rep getting elected, and black votes would have even less of a voice, compared to the current 3/1 Rep-Dem split. In fact, At-Large districts were common in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act for that explicit reason.
So question to the thread: In this age of ubiquitous communications technology there are a myriad of ways to communicate your needs to your elected representatives. Given that - do congressional districts serve any function currently? Besides another lever with which to strip voters of power, I mean. It seems like instead of redistricting, just chucking the districts entirely in favor of proportional representation within the state would give the voters the best representation.
Or am I missing something here?
Mississippi is ~60% white / ~40% black. If their Districts were entirely At-Large/Statewide there wouldn't even be the single Democratic Rep getting elected, and black votes would have even less of a voice, compared to the current 3/1 Rep-Dem split. In fact, At-Large districts were common in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act for that explicit reason.
He said proportional representation not at-large districts. If all the white vote goes to reps and all the black vote goes to the dem then proportionally that makes it 2/2 Rep-Dem Split (The third representative would be 10% of the vote Rep and 15% of the vote Dem). This would make their voice stronger not weaker.
So question to the thread: In this age of ubiquitous communications technology there are a myriad of ways to communicate your needs to your elected representatives. Given that - do congressional districts serve any function currently? Besides another lever with which to strip voters of power, I mean. It seems like instead of redistricting, just chucking the districts entirely in favor of proportional representation within the state would give the voters the best representation.
Or am I missing something here?
Mississippi is ~60% white / ~40% black. If their Districts were entirely At-Large/Statewide there wouldn't even be the single Democratic Rep getting elected, and black votes would have even less of a voice, compared to the current 3/1 Rep-Dem split. In fact, At-Large districts were common in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act for that explicit reason.
I think you mean ~60% R / ~40% D, because demographic data I can find puts Missouri at ~84% white / ~12% black. As far as I know there is no state in the union that has a 40% black population, though some are edging towards majority-minority (or rather less than 50% white is a clearer way of putting it).
-edit- or perhaps I was wrong and you mean Mississippi? Quick internet search says the white/black split is around 58/37 which is higher than I thought any state was at.
-edit2- don't mind me I apparently can't read. Is Mississippi the state with the highest proportion of black citizens?
So question to the thread: In this age of ubiquitous communications technology there are a myriad of ways to communicate your needs to your elected representatives. Given that - do congressional districts serve any function currently? Besides another lever with which to strip voters of power, I mean. It seems like instead of redistricting, just chucking the districts entirely in favor of proportional representation within the state would give the voters the best representation.
Or am I missing something here?
Mississippi is ~60% white / ~40% black. If their Districts were entirely At-Large/Statewide there wouldn't even be the single Democratic Rep getting elected, and black votes would have even less of a voice, compared to the current 3/1 Rep-Dem split. In fact, At-Large districts were common in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act for that explicit reason.
I think you mean ~60% R / ~40% D, because demographic data I can find puts Missouri at ~84% white / ~12% black. As far as I know there is no state in the union that has a 40% black population, though some are edging towards majority-minority (or rather less than 50% white is a clearer way of putting it).
-edit- or perhaps I was wrong and you mean Mississippi? Quick internet search says the white/black split is around 58/37 which is higher than I thought any state was at.
-edit2- don't mind me I apparently can't read. Is Mississippi the state with the highest proportion of black citizens?
It is. Also the most racially polarized electorate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
In order to avoid answering questions, Mark Harris, who is dealing with issues of severe vote tampering by his campaign, literally ran from the press, tripping a fire alarm in the process before he...apparently sought sanctuary?
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
I would almost guarantee that if you are involved enough to want to pre-research your candidates, you will be involved enough to know that districts might be changing. I was mostly being facetious about the single day timeline, but even then that still gives you an evening most likely to research the candidates for your new district. I think the amount of people that this would disrupt their voting habits is probably a pretty small number. And I would think a much smaller injustice than disenfranchising large percentages of the population due to partisan gerrymandering.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
Lots of people show up not knowing or caring just to vote for their party. Having a different candidate won't change their vote.
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
Lots of people show up not knowing or caring just to vote for their party. Having a different candidate won't change their vote.
And therefore I should not know who is on my ballot beforehand.
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
Lots of people show up not knowing or caring just to vote for their party. Having a different candidate won't change their vote.
And therefore I should not know who is on my ballot beforehand.
No, don't really see it.
Ehh. If this were being argued a week, even a month out, then maybe there's an argument to be made.
But it's 10 months away, if Virginia have a mid-mid-term. And 22 months to the next big one.
The argument being made is that districts can never change, if that length of time is still sufficient to cause "confusion".
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
Lots of people show up not knowing or caring just to vote for their party. Having a different candidate won't change their vote.
And therefore I should not know who is on my ballot beforehand.
No, don't really see it.
Ehh. If this were being argued a week, even a month out, then maybe there's an argument to be made.
But it's 10 months away, if Virginia have a mid-mid-term. And 22 months to the next big one.
The argument being made is that districts can never change, if that length of time is still sufficient to cause "confusion".
It's in response to this:
"I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here."
The Courts should consider and define a reasonable length of time prior to an election upon which the map must be fixes. It should also have it's own draft map prepared that will be applied on that day if no other map is submitted that is found to be constitutional. 30-90 days seems at minimum to be reasonable, but it doesn't really matter so long as they have a fix and provide time to educate voters.
It bothers me greatly that the Republicans have been able to delay redistricting enough to get multiple elections under unconstitutional maps. They have repeatedly dragged their feet about drawing new maps in multiple places and have suffered no consequences for doing so. Perhaps the proper solution is to have both parties submit a proposed map by a specified date (45 days ahead of the election maybe?) and then the courts choose whichever one is the least problematic. If one side doesn't submit a map, the other goes into effect by default. That should encourage them both to minimize the fuckery I would hope.
It bothers me greatly that the Republicans have been able to delay redistricting enough to get multiple elections under unconstitutional maps. They have repeatedly dragged their feet about drawing new maps in multiple places and have suffered no consequences for doing so. Perhaps the proper solution is to have both parties submit a proposed map by a specified date (45 days ahead of the election maybe?) and then the courts choose whichever one is the least problematic. If one side doesn't submit a map, the other goes into effect by default. That should encourage them both to minimize the fuckery I would hope.
Have both submit maps, if neither can muster something that survives scrutiny the Court draws the map and tough shit.
"Look, the voters of this state are easily confused, and profoundly ignorant, and we should know - we've gone to a lot of time, effort and expense to keep them that way. Really, this would be so much simpler if you'd just let us keep picking who we want to win."
So, one of my colleagues today was tasked with calling all 67 Florida counties, telling them he had a felony conviction but was released, and asking about the steps to get registered.
Shockingly, all 67 counties provided accurate steps and details about what to do, how to do it, etc. Not a single one tried to stonewall him or give him false information.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
There really is pretty widespread support of this measure here, Scott nonwithstanding. Most of my conservative family are also for the restoration of voting rights.
We got something right for once.
+33
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
So, one of my colleagues today was tasked with calling all 67 Florida counties, telling them he had a felony conviction but was released, and asking about the steps to get registered.
Shockingly, all 67 counties provided accurate steps and details about what to do, how to do it, etc. Not a single one tried to stonewall him or give him false information.
What skin color does your colleague sound like? This is sadly a serious question, as it is going to impact this sort of thing.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
So, one of my colleagues today was tasked with calling all 67 Florida counties, telling them he had a felony conviction but was released, and asking about the steps to get registered.
Shockingly, all 67 counties provided accurate steps and details about what to do, how to do it, etc. Not a single one tried to stonewall him or give him false information.
What skin color does your colleague sound like? This is sadly a serious question, as it is going to impact this sort of thing.
The Trump administration cannot put a question about citizenship status on the 2020 census, a federal judge in New York ruled Friday in a boost to proponents of counting immigrants.
In a 277-page decision that won’t be the final word on the issue, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that while such a question would be constitutional, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had moved to add it to the census arbitrarily and had not followed proper administrative procedures.
“He failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices,” Furman wrote.
So what happens if they just... put the question on the census anyway?
In this all too likely scenario, then the courts probably rule that people cannot be punished for not answering the question. This, of course, would do very little because the people most likely impacted by such a question are unlikely to be informed that the question is not mandatory, and would be likely to just not fill out the form instead of risking deportation or imprisonment, resulting in them not being counted and accomplishing the primary goal of the question.
Posts
*excluding ACA repeal bills
Sounds like they're laying a good foundation for the next election cycle's messaging. Being in the KS3 district, I can attest to the effectiveness of such messaging against incumbents who've not bothered with bringing home the bacon, so to speak. Yoder was great for carrying the GOP's water but was terrible in making it look like he was doing something for his district.
Pelosi could not be a starker constrast to Ryan in that regard.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yeah this tidbit came in a conversation started by me asking how busy she’s been since the election and that I was glad that HR1 was the voting rights bill because it polls well and addresses disadvantages Dems have in elections, but didn’t expect it to pass the senate or Trump.
She said “well actually, we DO plan on passing it, and about 30 other bills people elected us to fix for them, and that they will become law. We have almost the whole session written and whipped already.”
So....they have been busy as hell since November!
As someone that lives just across the border in MO5, I'd like to thank you and the other voters of KS3 for knocking Yoder out. I heard/saw more of his freaking campaign ads than any other house candidate in KS or MO by a wide margin.
The fact he lost to Sharice Davids, a well qualified, Native American lesbian, that could kick his ass in real life and has actual planned policy goals was just *chef's kiss*.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
As a fellow MO5, I take it you didn't like George Brett showing up gleefully calling himself a "Yoder Voter" six times an hour either?
Article also mentions turning over a precedent only four years old says out loud the thing Roberts has been expressly trying to deny for a while; that SCOTUS nominees (or at least GoP ones) are being picked for their politics, not their judicial expertise. Unless a lower court overturns it first, there is a chance they'll let the lower derision stand and not take up the case.
Hinging it all on Robert's sense of shame is not what I would like at all, obviously, but hopefully it will last past 2020 for a Dem Congress to make redistricting commissions the norm.
Or am I missing something here?
The big arguments for are regional, and particularly, minority representation. The people of Kansas City, for example, are going to have different problems and concerns than those who live in Missouri's bootheel, or even St. Louis. And it's a sad, unfortunate truth that if you don't have minority representation in a political body, that body starts to become deaf to minority issues, regardless of party affiliation.
Mississippi is ~60% white / ~40% black. If their Districts were entirely At-Large/Statewide there wouldn't even be the single Democratic Rep getting elected, and black votes would have even less of a voice, compared to the current 3/1 Rep-Dem split. In fact, At-Large districts were common in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act for that explicit reason.
He said proportional representation not at-large districts. If all the white vote goes to reps and all the black vote goes to the dem then proportionally that makes it 2/2 Rep-Dem Split (The third representative would be 10% of the vote Rep and 15% of the vote Dem). This would make their voice stronger not weaker.
I think you mean ~60% R / ~40% D, because demographic data I can find puts Missouri at ~84% white / ~12% black. As far as I know there is no state in the union that has a 40% black population, though some are edging towards majority-minority (or rather less than 50% white is a clearer way of putting it).
-edit- or perhaps I was wrong and you mean Mississippi? Quick internet search says the white/black split is around 58/37 which is higher than I thought any state was at.
-edit2- don't mind me I apparently can't read. Is Mississippi the state with the highest proportion of black citizens?
It is. Also the most racially polarized electorate.
This is not satire. We have video.
Joe Bruno is a reporter for a local news station.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
"Republicans said having a lower court approve a new map only to have it discarded later by the Supreme Court would confuse voters and candidates."
Is this the new tactic?
OH PEOPLE WILL GET CONFUSED
No. Once it's settled, you send out new voter registration cards to everyone with their polling place.
Then you send a map to the candidates.
It's not fucking confusing.
Also, aren't we on like year 3 now of courts saying the map was illegal and the republicans saying it can't be changed because the next election will be confusing? It's not like maps have never been changed before.
I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here.
I'd rather know who the candidates to represent me are before arriving at the polling booth and getting a mystery ballot.
I would almost guarantee that if you are involved enough to want to pre-research your candidates, you will be involved enough to know that districts might be changing. I was mostly being facetious about the single day timeline, but even then that still gives you an evening most likely to research the candidates for your new district. I think the amount of people that this would disrupt their voting habits is probably a pretty small number. And I would think a much smaller injustice than disenfranchising large percentages of the population due to partisan gerrymandering.
Lots of people show up not knowing or caring just to vote for their party. Having a different candidate won't change their vote.
And therefore I should not know who is on my ballot beforehand.
No, don't really see it.
Ehh. If this were being argued a week, even a month out, then maybe there's an argument to be made.
But it's 10 months away, if Virginia have a mid-mid-term. And 22 months to the next big one.
The argument being made is that districts can never change, if that length of time is still sufficient to cause "confusion".
It's in response to this:
"I don't even particularly buy the argument if the next election was tomorrow. Just have a database at every polling station, and have some spare voter cards for the next district over so that if anyone shows up at the wrong place they can still vote. I don't see the problem here."
The Courts should consider and define a reasonable length of time prior to an election upon which the map must be fixes. It should also have it's own draft map prepared that will be applied on that day if no other map is submitted that is found to be constitutional. 30-90 days seems at minimum to be reasonable, but it doesn't really matter so long as they have a fix and provide time to educate voters.
Have both submit maps, if neither can muster something that survives scrutiny the Court draws the map and tough shit.
Shockingly, all 67 counties provided accurate steps and details about what to do, how to do it, etc. Not a single one tried to stonewall him or give him false information.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
We got something right for once.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
100% black
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
In this all too likely scenario, then the courts probably rule that people cannot be punished for not answering the question. This, of course, would do very little because the people most likely impacted by such a question are unlikely to be informed that the question is not mandatory, and would be likely to just not fill out the form instead of risking deportation or imprisonment, resulting in them not being counted and accomplishing the primary goal of the question.