Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression

From the New York Times:

State Court Bars Using North Carolina House Map in 2020 Elections

A state court ruled the state's gerrymandered Congressional district map violates the state's constitution.

But in the process, the three-judge panel noted, they left “a detailed record of both the partisan intent and the intended partisan effect of the 2016 congressional districts.” That record was so extensive, the judges said, that it left little doubt that opponents of the map would be able to prove in a trial that it violated the State Constitution.

The North Carolina constitution has a clause protecting the right to vote and the courts are finding that it was not intended to be a mere formality.

Republican legislators did not immediately respond to the latest order. They could oppose a motion for summary judgment and, should it come, appeal it to the state Supreme Court. But the three-judge panel suggested on Monday that the Republican legislative leaders forgo legal arguments and use the same bipartisan map-drawing process employed to draft the new state legislative districts.

Those legislature maps were originally also heavily gerrymandered but were ruled unconstitutional by the same state court.

From the Guardian:

Republicans tried to rig the vote in Michigan – but ‘political novices’ just defeated them

Michigan voters have enacted a non-partisan apportionment process to end Republican extreme gerrymandering.

In 2017, the group drafted the measure to give redistricting authority to 13 Michigan residents – four Democrats, four Republicans and five non-affiliated voters, instead of lawmakers. More than 2.5 million Michigan voters approved the measure to amend the Michigan constitution and create the commission last year.

By the way, the Republicans never hid their intent for permanent rule: like cartoon villians they, again, bragged about their efforts.

And the GOP lawmakers were not subtle: emails made public last year revealed a Republican aide bragging about cramming “Dem garbage” into certain Michigan districts in 2011, as they drew the current electoral boundaries.

And, of course, the party of anti-democracy is fighting the law in court, under the claim that the non-partisan requirements discriminate against people based on political affiliation. (For people who don't get the joke, we are talking about the defense of gerrymandered districts intended to discriminate against political affiliation!)

One would hope this effort to protect democracy survives a Supreme Court challenge:

Even the supreme court chief justice, John Roberts, who wrote earlier this year that federal courts can’t do anything to fix partisan gerrymandering, has held up the Michigan effort as a pathway for fixing the problem.

However, I'm with Kagan in doubting the conservatives' sincerity when they pointed toward voter initiatives as a possible solution to gerrymandering.

I'm still curious, though, about what our local conservatives feel about the issue.

Do they think that gerrymandering is fair and not a big deal?

Do they think that it's a violation of democratic norms but the Republicans have no choice but to do what it takes to shutdown the "Dem scum"?

Or will they oppose such clear anti-democratic moves even when it's the Republicans that engage in them?

From the New York Times:

A Census Whodunit: Why Was the Citizenship Question Added?

As a reminder: The Trump administration tried to add to next year's census a question asking whether the respondents were citizens. The reasons were obvious: such a question would have caused many legal immigrant residents to avoid the census, suppressing their numbers, and there are plans among Republican dominated states to base apportionment on citizens rather than residents. The effect would be to decrease Democratic representation.

The administration denied this was the reason, insisting that it was to help enforce the Voters' Rights Act. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that the administration wasn't being entirely honest and sent the case back to be re argued in the lower courts. Rather than admit that they are partisan hacks trying to cement into place permanent Republican rule, the administration dropped the question.

Recently released documents provide evidence that the reasons to add the citizenship question to the census was political, and that the Trump administration's were dishonest in their denials.

The latest disclosures tend to support their claim that the administration’s stated reason for adding the question — to help enforce the Voting Rights Act — was a pretext for a scheme to boost Republican political power when population totals from the next census are used to draw new political districts in 2021.

The administration claims it was an oversight that they hadn't disclosed these documents before, but...

"It is interesting that each and every document that the administration 'inadvertently' failed to disclose is something that connects the dots between the citizenship question and a discriminatory scheme to dilute the political power of immigrant communities," Dale Ho, a senior lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who represents some of the plaintiffs, said in an email. "If that’s just coincidence, it’s an awfully convenient one for an administration known for a casual relationship with the truth."

I felt at the time that Roberts ruled against the census question because he didn't like being lied to. If and when this question reaches the Supreme Court again, my prediction is that if the administration is honest and admits, "Yeah, we want to exclude people to our benefit because fuck those guys," the Roberts court will rule, "Alrighty, then."

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in the subtitle.

From the Guardian:

Kentucky's new Democratic governor allows 140,000 ex-felons to vote

Kentucky has joined a number of states in reconsidering their ban on felons voting. Governor Beshear has signed an executive order that will restore the voting rights to those convicted of non-violent felonies after they have completed their sentences.

Currently, about 10% of the state’s population (more than 312,000 people) is disenfranchised because of this policy, according to a 2016 estimate by the Sentencing Project. Beshear’s order will automatically restore voting rights to those with non-violent felonies who complete their sentences. And it could affect the makeup of the state’s voting population: more than one in four African Americans in the state can’t vote because of a felony conviction, according to the estimate. Beshear said on Thursday that Kentuckians should be ashamed of the state’s high disenfranchisement rate.

Because that policy is structurally racist.

Because “Justice” is structurally not blind to race, more people of color are convicted than whites.

Let’s hope this helps to beat McConnell.

Enjoy

From the Guardian:

For America’s black politicians, winning an election can lead to jail

That our local white nationalist is threatening to impeach future Democratic Presidents for no legitimate cause on another thread should no longer be a surprise for people who believe in democracy. This article from the Guardian notes several instances where Republicans use technicalities to overturn the voters' decisions and in some cases even prosecuting their opponents. Interestingly, the victims are predominantly black.

The motivations behind today’s efforts to overturn elections and remove black elected officials are not very different than Reconstruction-era motivations. After all, when a group that has benefited from majority rule faces the demographic reality that they will no longer be the majority, it’s inevitable that some members of that group will seek to simply reverse the results.

Some will seek it, but most of the former majority will seem to cover for it.

Can't read the whole article but I'll take your word for the gist of it. Here is its first line:

This year, much of what we hold dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth.

And that is for sure in spades. The problem of course is that the Guardian is a liberal mouthpiece and that statement is false because they think they are the guardians of "democracy, civility, truth." Either they really believe that or they are running the usual disinformation to keep the public in the dark. It's hard to know in many cases. But they are wrong about who is threatening these values cuz it ain't the right, it's their own liberal/leftist camp.

But I mostly just want to address the complaint about the rumblings concerning impeaching the next Democratic President the way they are going about impeaching Trump. The argument is that the totally partisan illegal methods being used in this current sham impeachment have to be confronted if there is any chance to save our republic, meaning also save "democracy, civility and truth" because the Democrats have undermined these values in their zeal to overturn the legitimate election of Trump. I'd prefer it myself if somehow this charade could be exposed for what it is now, possibly in the Senate trial, and/or through the reports coming out by Barr and Durham.

Anybody noticed that since Barr has been making statements forshadowing his report that expose the sham impeachment and all the Democrat subterfuges against Trump since before he was elected, that now we are getting the usual liberal/leftist tactic of character assassination against Barr. Right out of the Lefty playbook. Whoever tells the truth about the illegal attack on the President is going to be subject to this tactic. And liberals in the country won't hear anything else from the corrupted media so they'll believe it. What a nightmare of a time we are living in when the truth is suppressed in this way and you all don't see it, you all at EvC.

Can't read the whole article but I'll take your word for the gist of it.

That's unfortunate. The article gives some of the details about the technicalities used by the Republicans to justify their shenanigans; might give your side some arguments to argue against the author's conclusions.

The argument is that the totally partisan illegal methods being used in this current sham impeachment have to be confronted if there is any chance to save our republic....

So this is a case where "two wrongs" DO "make a right"? What if, instead of "saving our republic" it just creates a situation where from now on every single President gets impeached until the Republic finally collapses?

quote:

---

But I mostly just want to address the complaint about the rumblings concerning impeaching the next Democratic President the way they are going about impeaching Trump

---

The actual argument is that if the Democrats dare to impeach Trump just because he’s been caught abusing his powers in a totally unacceptable way, then the Republicans should run a completely fake impeachment of the next Democrat to hold the Presidency.

quote:

---

The argument is that the totally partisan illegal methods being used in this current sham impeachment have to be confronted if there is any chance to save our republic, meaning also save "democracy, civility and truth" because the Democrats have undermined these values in their zeal to overturn the legitimate election of Trump

---

In reality the position is that he Republicans have thrown out civility and truth and now threaten the Republic, all in the name of protecting a corrupt President. The idea that two wrongs make a right is absurd enough - the idea that you can correct an imaginary wrong with a genuine wrong staggers belief.

No, the people making this suggestion are liars and traitors.

And yet you can't name a single illegal thing the liberals are doing.

Pointing out Barr is lying about the IG report is speaking truth, not character assassination.

Truth IS what Faith calls “character assassination”.

Although she really loves false accusations when they are made against anyone she hates.

Just a note that this sort of personal attack, nothing BUT a personal attack, ought to be summarily propelled into Suspension. Just a note.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Too damn funny. You can dish it out put can't take it I guess. Boo, fucking hoo.

You will also note that it is neither an argument nor even a reply to you. It is aso a fact that most of us are all too aware of.

The liberals have been accepted mere hearsay and opinion as legal testimony, they have been denying the Republicans any kind of fair hearing, even denying them the knowledge of when the vote will occur until the last minute, denying due process which is standard procedure whether it is spelled out in the Constitution or not, then we can go back to the beginning and note that Hillary's obstruction of justice was covered up by Comey, that the illegal "dirty dossier" was treated as verified when it was unverified and unverifiable, to defraud the FISA court into granting surveillance of the Trump campaign, apparently under the auspices of Obama, that the Mueller report was begun on the basis of this fraud, and never should have been allowed at all, a hugely expensive attempt to unseat a duly elected President which found NOTHING against him though the liberals made out that it did anyway, c,losed-door hearings is another violation. These things ARE illegal on normal grounds including Constitutional grounds which respect the defendant and grant him protections being ignored by the liberals. Lots more than this and I hope it all comes out, hope hope hope the unconscionable attack on Barr gets shown for what it is. ALL of it is illegal, everything they've done is illegal, disgustingly partisan with no respect whatever for American institutions, the office of the Presidency, the tens of millions of citizens who voted for Trump, the whole impeachment with its phony "Articles of Impeachment" the works, all of it, is fraudulent.

Hey I heard about a book recently that liberals ought to read along with the many others I've mentioned from time to time: Resistance At All Costs, How the Trump Haters are Breaking America by Kimberly Strassel, who writes a column for the Wall Street Journal. There's a short audio of her reading a Preface or Introduction or something like that under the picture of the book at Amazon. Good way to do it I think. Gets across the point of view of conservatives very nicely.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.