Valin Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Hot Air: Jazz Shaw February 27, 2015 Next week the Supreme Court will hear a case coming out of Arizona which everyone should be paying attention to, since it will have repercussions which affect virtually everyone in the nation. The gerrymandering issue in this country is well known enough that we don’t need to explain it to you here yet again. Some states have taken action to change the old fashioned method of state legislators fighting over lines to serve their own advantage, and in Arizona they turned the process over to a supposedly independent commission. But the legislators in question weren’t wild about the decision of the people and took the case to court. This week the Supremes will hear those arguments. (Snip) A group in California (where a similar change was put in place) has already filed an amicus brief against the Arizona case, trying to prevent the Justices from flipping everything back to the way it was. They make impassioned pleas about returning the power to the people and taking the nasty politics out of the process, but that’s not what’s going to decide this issue. The Supreme Court is really going to be hearing a case which comes down to semantics. Arizona is relying on the Constitutional clause which says that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives” will be determined by the state legislature. They further reference an existing law which states that the lines will be drawn “in a manner provided by the law.” Arizona sees this as a no brainer and wants the power given back to them. Opponents are arguing that the language used in the 1700s was different than today, and the dictionaries of the time call the legislature the source of laws and that includes all branches of government and the voters. The meaning of words change over time, it’s true. Misdemeanor means something very different than it apparently did in colonial days and there are other examples as well. The Justices will likely take a serious look at that claim, but I’m not sure if it will be enough. No matter which way it goes, I don’t know how much difference it makes if we’re only talking about commissions, rather than other, more creative ways of drawing up district maps. I understand that it’s hard to convince some conservatives that gerrymandering is a problem because it works in the favor of the Republicans in the majority of places. For now. But whether you support a change or not, these private commissions are questionable simply because they are composed of people. Who gets to sit on them and how is that determined? How sure are you that the commissioners aren’t partisans themselves? (Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Liberty Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 But the legislators in question weren’t wild about the decision of the people and took the case to court. Don't look now, but Jazz Hands' lefty bias is showing. I don't think he writes for the right blog. The AZ case is interesting, because "the people" voted to have an independent redistricting commission, but the commission seated for the 2010 boundaries was anything but. It was packed with Democrats claiming to be "independent" (like that Dem that was running for Senate in Kansas). AZ has never had so many "safe" Democrat seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 @Cyber_Liberty An independent panel made up of politicians and political people...What did people expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Liberty Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 @Cyber_Liberty An independent panel made up of politicians and political people...What did people expect? I can tell you what I expected, but they shouted me down at the time for being cynical. I'm just a right wing nutter, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Liberty Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Post from the Comment section: The biggest problem here is the Arizona legislature never had a say in the stripping of its federal Constitutional duty to draw the Congressional district lines. That represents nothing less than a coup. Steve Eggleston on February 27, 2015 at 9:06 AM Steve has it exactly right, in a nutshell. The Constitution specifies “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives” will be determined by the state legislature. While there's room for argument about whether a State Legislature can delegate that authority, that argument doesn't apply here because it was created by a ballot proposition proposed by petition, not by the Legislature. IOW, the Legislature was bypassed to create the Commission. It's not difficult to make the legal argument this violates the Constitution because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 @Cyber_Liberty An independent panel made up of politicians and political people...What did people expect? I can tell you what I expected, but they shouted me down at the time for being cynical. I'm just a right wing nutter, you know. That reminds me, you're 3 months behind in your dues.....also you're scheduled to bring donuts for the next meeting. There is (IMO) a real problem with redistricting...ie very very few districts are really competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Liberty Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 @Cyber_Liberty An independent panel made up of politicians and political people...What did people expect? I can tell you what I expected, but they shouted me down at the time for being cynical. I'm just a right wing nutter, you know. That reminds me, you're 3 months behind in your dues.....also you're scheduled to bring donuts for the next meeting. There is (IMO) a real problem with redistricting...ie very very few districts are really competitive. Being "competitive" isn't the be-all, end-all. I think it's more important the districts keep "populations of interest" together, which usually means the district boundaries should follow natural boundaries like city limits, rivers and such. AZ is an interesting case, because even though it was not in the Confederacy "deep south," it's covered by the same legal agreement the deep South has to allow the DoJ to oversee its redistricting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Being "competitive" isn't the be-all, end-all. I think it's more important the districts keep "populations of interest" together, which usually means the district boundaries should follow natural boundaries like city limits, rivers and such. The two are not mutually exclusive. I agree, way to many times it appears districts are drawn in such a way as to protect the party/incumbent, no matter how insane they look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Liberty Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Being "competitive" isn't the be-all, end-all. I think it's more important the districts keep "populations of interest" together, which usually means the district boundaries should follow natural boundaries like city limits, rivers and such. The two are not mutually exclusive. I agree, way to many times it appears districts are drawn in such a way as to protect the party/incumbent, no matter how insane they look. Correct. In the cased of the corrupted AZ redistricting, the lines were drawn in a way to elect the most Dems as possible from a primarily Republican state. 5 out of 9 CDs were Dem until last election. There was a stated preference to "make them competitive," but they lied about what's a competitive district. Take mine, for example, AZ CD9. The local liberal newspaper keeps calling it "competitive," but the Dem consistently wins it 60-40%. That's not competitive by any definition that you and I understand, but it's a useful fiction for the lying left. The only competitive district, in reality, is Giffords' old seat, and it's a very tough place for a Republican to win, being that it contains Tucson (a liberal bastion). McSally, the Republican, won that election by 164 votes. I really hope SCOTUS tosses our scheme out, but I doubt that they will. "Will of 'The People'" and all that. Only the Ninth Circus likes to throw out the will of the people, and only when it goes against the Dems. Needless to say, since this scheme we have benefits the Dems, the Ninth sees nothing wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now