this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7124 readers
809 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After Alabama was ordered to redraw their Congressional maps, Republicans are facing potential loss of some seats in the House.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] other_world@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There really needs to be independent nonpartisan redistricting across the country.

[–] carlyman@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How does that actually work in practice? Its a good model to strive for, but impossible to do in reality.

[–] Bautznersenf@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. But before that can happen blue states need to continue gerrymandering as hard as possible to counterbalance red states.

[–] Sonemonkey@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago
[–] olivebuffalo@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am completely okay with that!

[–] NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Honestly I'm surprised the SCOTUS ruled this way. With how clearly activist they've been for christian nationalist interests, I kinda expected them to just nuke anything that might hurt the GOP

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Although the majority's decision is disappointing, this case is not over."

Is it just me, or does that sound rather menacing?

The highest court in the country finds the districting lines were intentionally racist and need to be redrawn, and the response is “the fight is not over?”

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, they're getting increasingly brazen with their rhetoric.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looks like 5 seats could end up becoming Democratic, which would mean an even split of 217 seats each.

[–] TheDogAndTheDragon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This would only be at the next election right? So it would just make the split more "fair" for what the population in general wants. But the House does tend to go for the winning candidate's Party during a Presidential election year I think.

[–] RedPander@lemmy.rogers-net.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another issue is timing. State(s) could drag their feet in redistricting and if it gets too close to the election say they don't have time to complete the courts request. I hope there's timeliness enforced.

Also, yes usually the house goes to the winning candidate for the first two years than swaps.

[–] Bautznersenf@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the Ohio strategy. There just ignoring the court ruling.

[–] taj@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Yup. That's the way the Ohio 'non-gerrymandering' law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal... 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)

[–] taj@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yup. That's the way the Ohio 'non-gerrymandering' law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal... 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)

[–] Kaiser@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Good, gerrymandering has been a problem for years. I remember talking about it in my GIS classes during college. Unfortunately its very with modern GIS software. GIS and Gerrymandering.. Glad to see the supreme court starting to take some action on it.

[–] zerkrazus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read a comment somewhere where someone theorized that maybe they ruled this way to try to quell dissent ahead of a possible decision we won't like. I think maybe it was the Harper case? Not 100% sure.

[–] CynAq@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I heard Krystal Ball say it might be a move to somewhat reestablish the trust in the SC after the RvW decision demolished it. I guess both of these ideas make some sense.

It should concern everyone that any judicial decision was based on politics. This is true of whether you like the decision or not. The elected representatives reflect the will of the people, not the judiciary (in my biased Canadian view, anyway).