Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 12 of 83 (856158)
06-28-2019 12:53 AM


The 2018 election showed how districts can change partisan orientation - dramatically
The 2018 John Culberson loss in Houston proved that districts can shift, so partisan-performance at the time of the district drawing is something of an illusion.
2018 was instructive.
The 2016 election was telling as well.
Romney won the gerrymandered Kansas City, Kansas district 54% to 43%, but Hillary Clinton won in 2016.
Look at all of the 2016 flips in California (especially Orange County) from Romney to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton won a ton of districts that were supposed to be safe Republican. Then look at all of the flips in the actual congressional winners themselves in 2018.
North Carolina and Maryland got gerrymander cases decided by the courts.
The Maryland 6th district seat actually has the (D) beneficiary, John Delaney, running for President (in yesterdays debate). Delaney got a massively changed 6th district to run in during the 2012 election. A 20 year Republican-incumbent was smashed by Delaney in 2012 (59% to 38%), and this was in a previously safe Republican seat. But, 2 years later, in 2014, U.S. Congressman Delaney almost lost to his Republican challenger (it was a 50% to 49% race). And the 2014 Governors race saw the Republican candidate win by over 10% (51% to 47% statewide win). The Republican Governor won the 6th district by about 20% in 2018 (55% to 44% win statewide win)
The courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) might be correct when they tell us that it is too tough to judge whether the districts really are as partisan as they are made out to be. It is admittedly illegal to draw districts to benefit a party, but do the districts actually do what many assumed they would do?
Hispanics and educated voters swung away from Republican-supporting patterns in South Florida, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City (Kansas), Orange County, and the nation over.
Republicans drew a lot of districts to be seemingly favorable to their candidates (with the drawing of multiple adjacent districts assumed to be around 53-55% Republican-performing), but they actually spread themselves so thinly that the Trump-factor more than killed off the "+3" to "+5" "GOP districts" purpose; many of these voters were actually Democratic leaning when a Donald Trump Republican party is THE Republican party.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 3:05 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 83 (856244)
06-28-2019 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
06-28-2019 3:10 PM


Re: What's Right...
quote:
t's also driven by modern technology and advanced analytics combined with modern polling data. Parties can carve up states with fine precision in a way that couldn't be done before.
Computer programs were used as far back as 1990. These districts literally need to have an equal number of citizens (off by no more than 1 or 2), and even with that (seeming) massive difficulty, Texas Democrats were able to draw districts that gave them 70% of the state legislature, state Senate, and about 65% of the United States congressional seats in 1992. (Republicans won over 50% of the voters but only got 30% of seats)
Republicans still flipped the gerrymandered seats.
That was Texas.
Look at California.
Seats were drawn to protect incumbents there.
Asians still voted 76% for Republicans in 1992.
(Muslims and Arabs still voted about 70% GOP as late as 2000)
Hispanics turned out in lower numbers.
Things got turned on their head.
(Asians went from voting 60-40 pro-GOP in 2004 to about 60-40 Democratic by 2008)
(below is due to the Trump factor)
Look at rural voters swinging mightily (that is, even more) toward Republicans in just the last 4 years.
At the same time, Democrats are winning suburban districts even more than before.
There is no "fine precision", because voters follow the respective political party's issue positions - WHICH CHANGE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 06-28-2019 3:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 26 of 83 (856245)
06-28-2019 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
06-28-2019 12:14 PM


Re: The 2018 election showed how districts can change partisan orientation - dramatically
quote:
That is true, especially since the Supreme Court decided that it isn't illegal.
I haven't read the decision (or news articles), but I am pretty sure the Supreme Court did not say that partisan districts are not illegal.
The issue has always been about finding a way to be able to tell which district is legal verses illegal.
Every "scientific" analytical theory gets shot down as flawed. Experts have attempted to find a "solution".
The big flips in voting patterns have really demonstrated the difficulty. Republicans might be able to claim that their (Trump era) voters are packed into rural areas, and should be spread out a manner similar to how Utah draws districts.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 06-28-2019 12:14 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 27 of 83 (856246)
06-28-2019 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
06-28-2019 2:01 PM


Re: What's Right...
quote:
Slowly we seem to be arriving at the important, fundamental point: Is the US not "of the people, by the people and for the people". Does anyone here want the system changed so each individual doesn't have a right to vote as they choose and have that vote be as effective as anyone else's.
If any of you Americans are truly patriotic and concerned about your country you'd be outraged by all this shit.
Then make it very easy for people to vote.
See what happens when 90% "turn out" to vote in every state and district.
I can't even begin to imagine the dramatic shift in the political landscape.
We also need to understand that voters do need representation, so politicians need to respond to the needs of their own constituents (and not simply follow the national party on every issue).
The United Kingdom has the center-left Liberal Democrats, which is a party able to win in marginal districts that Labor cannot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2019 2:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 30 of 83 (856305)
06-29-2019 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
06-29-2019 11:14 AM


Re: Ruch v Common Cause: The decision
quote:
The first case, Rucho v Common Cause, is the North Carolina case where redistricting resulted in 10 Republican members of Congress and 3 Democrats even though, statewide,48% of the voters voted Democrat. I'll remind our readers that this was exactly as intended: the gerrymanders openly admitted that they were trying to achieve 10 Republicans as opposed to 3 Democrats.
North Carolina has a typical performance of 52%-53% Republican.
Remember that Democrats are naturally packed into cities and the suburbs very close to cities.
So North Carolina will have about two-thirds of the districts leaning Republican anyway (admittedly the gerrymander did tilt things).
quote:
The other case was Lamone v Benisek, the case from Maryland where district boundaries were deliberately redrawn to flip one district from Republican to Democrat. Again, the gerrymanders made no secret of their goals.
Maryland is a state where Republicans would win 3 out of 8 districts if not for the gerrymander. Democrats are 7 to 1.
Ironically, Maryland will have (popular) Republican Governor to deal with during the redistricting process.
North Carolina just elected a Democratic Governor in 2016, so his 2020 re-election race will give voters a chance to give Democrats a voice.
quote:
The main argument seems to be that the Founders were well aware of the problem of gerrymandering but gave the task of creating districts to the political branches anyway. Pointing out, as Taq has, that the Founders were unaware of modern computer technology and demographic data would be "second guessing" the Founders intent, which is bad until the conservatives want to claim to be "originalists" and... second-guess the Founders intent.
Also, the Founders were also aware of districts that violated "one person, one vote", yet the Court found this a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. What makes partisan gerrymanding different enough that it doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment? Roberts doesn't say.
He must be thinking of the Governor's races, for one thing.
quote:
The second point that Roberts stresses is that it is difficult to determine what a standard of fairness would look like and so a question left to the political branches.
Yet the Court has been able to determine when districts violate "racial fairness"; what makes "partisan fairness" more difficult? Roberts doesn't say.
There are actual measurable formulas for racial districts.
It seems that the standard on Voting-Rights Act districts is that once a district becomes majority minority, you can't dismantle it. A state that has 10 districts and a 30% African-American population, must have 3 majority black districts (and the turnout models suggest that the districts should be 55% African-American for blacks to have a fair-fight district) A state that reaches 40% African American population, with 5 seats, must have 2 majority African-American districts. A state with 4 districts, and 40% African-American population only must have 1 majority African-American district.
Hispanic districts do have a formula as well. The Hispanic districts need to be 65% Hispanic for Hispanics to have a solid chance at representation. The Courts have demanded that standard in Texas.
quote:
Roberts also makes the point that the actual behavior of voters don't always follow predictions and can change overtime.
Which is true, except in the two cases the Court was looking at, the results were exactly what was intended; furthermore, the intent of the North Carolina case is to lock in a long term partisan advantage.
The Maryland example shows the changing voting patterns. The Maryland 6th district is made up of about a half dozen counties in western Maryland, plus part of the massive Montgomery County. Western Maryland is now solidly Republican while Montgomery County is massively Democratic (though not in all parts). But Montgomery County, which is now only about 5% (or more?) Jewish, used to be about 30% so. It was a liberal Republican stronghold, when the rest of the state (except for Prince Georges County) was Democratic. Western Maryland was a very conservative-Democratic area.
Republicans, in the 1970s, would only win Prince Georges County & Montgomery County. A decade before, Republicans did well in Baltimore (or a few decades), though they did not win.
By the time of the 1990s, Democrats would loose 44 out of 47 counties, but would win BIG in Montgomery County, Prince Georges County, and Baltimore City. (essentially the complete opposite of the way things were before, though Baltimore wasn't ever a Republican-leaning city, and it was closest before the mid 1960s)
Republicans last won Prince Georges in 1976 or 1980. But 1996, Clinton beat Dole about 80 to 20 there.
Republican Presidents last won Montgomery County in 1988. Clinton won the county in 1996 by about 30% (though a liberal Republican continued to win the congressional district for a while after, until Democrats gerrymandered the seat - in 2002 putting Prince Georges County voters into the Montgomery County seat).
6 years after the liberal Republican Montgomery County congressman was defeated, Obama won the district 76% to 22% against McCain. (Gore won 60% in 2000 and Bill Clinton won 56% in 1996)
The district changed.
Things change.
And Republican Governors win the 6th district (which now includes a large part of super-Democratic Montgomery County)
quote:
Finally, Roberts points out that many states have, through the political process, instituted nonpartisan means of drawing districts, and the Elections Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate the process.
I've only glanced at Kagan 's dissent right now, but I did notice she pretty much questions Roberts' sincerity on this point.
Democrats can actually use legislation in the United States Congress to require every state to follow the national law.
Not too difficult considering Democrats are the majority in the House until January 2021. The Senate only needs 4 Republicans to join all 47 Democrats.
quote:
A few other points:
Roberts likewise dismisses the First Amendment objections to the gerrymandering. I'm not very familiar with this argument, so can't comment on it. Maybe Kagan's dissent will enlighten me.
Also Roberts dismisses the argument based on the "guarantee of a republican form of government clause". I do think this clause should be used more, but I agree there isn't a lot of precedence for its use. Anyway, I also think it's been largely subsumed into the Fourteenth Amendment.
Now that there was a 5-4 "party-line" SCOTUS decision, I would say this is a politically charged issue. Why use the courts when a political solution is possible? Let us see our legislators in action!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2019 11:14 AM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 34 of 83 (856875)
07-03-2019 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Chiroptera
07-02-2019 11:25 AM


Re: Rucho v Common Cause: The dissent
quote:
Kagan starts by outlining the redistricting process used in the Maryland and North Carolina cases, noting they open admitted their goal to give one party or the other a partisan advantage. These cases weren't some obscure borderline cases; they were the obvious and blatant examples you begin with when you start developing remedies.
....
To answer the majorities claim that gerrymanders have made mistakes in the past and that voters are unpredictable, Kagan points out the in these cases, the results were exactly as predicted. Thanks, modern technology!
I think the Maryland change made the Chris Van Hollen (now held by Jamie Raskin) seat more competitive PLUS the seat won by (now Presidential candidate) John Delaney. Before,the change, both were safe seats.
The Republican governor won the 6th district by over 10% in both 2014 and 2018 (candidate Larry Hogan won the "open" 2014 race when Democrats were very much favored to win statewide).
Voters will vote for a more moderate Republican, especially for a state/local race.
We simply don't know which direction a national party will go in. Imagine if Republicans suddenly choose to vote for the pro-immigration presidential candidate in the primary. In a post-Trump era (due to the intense focus and heightened clarity), the Republican candidates might start getting record amounts of credit for being pro-immigration, unlike the past GOP nominees (G. W. Bush was the first Republican to really run on having a pro-immigration mindset, and it did appear to help to attract a growing body of Republican-supporting Hispanic voters).
We don't really know how all the constituent groups (including wealthy white "moderates") will respond, for one thing.
quote:
Next, Kagan questions the majority's sincerity when they point out that the political process provides the remedy (at least, I read Kagan as accusing the majority of being disingenuous).
First, once too many "elected" representatives owe their position to gerrymandering, Kagan questions how likely it would be for them to fix it.
Kagan scoffs when the majority points out that in some states, voters have created nonpartisan methods of redistricting by voter initiative. But besides the fact some states don't have voter initiatives,
California and Florida will have about 85 congressmen total, after 2022.
Both have non-partisan redistricting.
Democrats should have wanted non-partisan redistricting in New York for a longtime, since it might allow for their own reputation to be helped a ton.
Republican-Texas will stick out like a sore thumb, especially considering the checkered history.
Democrats could run on redistricting,in Texas, as part of a "good government" platform. Democrats wouldn't need to make too much of a case convincing voters that the districts can be redrawn at ANY TIME (not only for the first election following the census), and they could promise voters to make "independent districts" as soon as they are elected.
But remember Hillary Clinton won many Texas districts that were drawn to favor Republicans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 07-02-2019 11:25 AM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024