|
Evil Fluffy posted:How anyone can look at his nakedly political dismantling of the VRA (when the SCOTUS is explicitly forbidden from acting in the way they did per a loving Constitutional Amendment) and think he cares about standing more than advancing personal beliefs is insane. John Roberts was the most political justice on the bench until Gorsuch was appointed, and that's only because Gorsuch is a loud Trumpian moron. Roberts opinion on the VRA is not as pants-on-head insane as you and some others portray it to be. This rage I see frequently expressed at Roberts in this case seems to come from despair at what the outcome of the case led to rather than his actual reasoning. That also ignores my earlier point: Roberts has voted not to hear cases that he obviously wished he could hear when standing and jurisdiction was an issue.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Perhaps it will ultimately go nowhere but anyone who thinks the conservative justices aren't looking for a way to intervene are insane. With any luck, maybe something this nakedly corrupt will nudge that tiny sliver of humanity inside of Kennedy and push him to rule against Wisconsin and Gerrymandering will be struck down nationwide. That'd pretty much guarantee the House flips in November (unless they rule the changes don't have to happen until 2020) as well as hand a lot of states back to the Democrats, including Wisconsin and NC. There's no way the Supreme Court requires every state to redraw before 2018. There isn't time, given that primaries have to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Roberts opinion on the VRA is not as pants-on-head insane as you and some others portray it to be. This rage I see frequently expressed at Roberts in this case seems to come from despair at what the outcome of the case led to rather than his actual reasoning. From the opinion quote:There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. By 2009, “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout [was] lower in the States originally covered by §5 than it [was] nationwide.” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. In related matters, Chief Justice Roberts was seen discarding all his umbrellas, citing a dry head in all recent thunderstorms that he went out in. The idea that we need to see more evidence of invidious discrimination in voting, in order to protect, it is asinine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Roberts opinion on the VRA is not as pants-on-head insane as you and some others portray it to be. This rage I see frequently expressed at Roberts in this case seems to come from despair at what the outcome of the case led to rather than his actual reasoning. Yeah lets just ignore that John Roberts as SCOTUS justice is only a thing because the piece of poo poo spent his entire career up to that point as a GOP political hack trying to make it harder for black and brown people to vote for the gains of his owners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Roberts opinion on the VRA is not as pants-on-head insane as you and some others portray it to be. This rage I see frequently expressed at Roberts in this case seems to come from despair at what the outcome of the case led to rather than his actual reasoning. Roberts' opinion boils down to "well racism isn't a problem now like it used to be (it is) so the VRA is irrelevant." Yes, it is insane. He has long wanted to kill the VRA and took this chance to do so using Bush v. Gore levels of reasoning. It's also complete coincidence that after the ruling there was a surge of right wing suppression tactics put in to effect, including in Shelby County. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:From the opinion He was also correct in his observation. It is still a question whether that should have mattered because congress is allowed to pass laws that do not make sense, but if that version of the VRA was written from scratch today with the formula for whether or not you should be included for pre-clearance, the formula would today be clearly stupid nonsense. Aside from the southern states that were the usual suspects, we had northeastern and coastal regions that are today a lot more diverse, blue, and do not credibly have a problem, but were still under preclearance. We also had midwest and southern areas not under preclearance that today look and behave (passing voter ID laws, etc) a lot like areas that were under preclearance. The obvious response to that is "so what? Why should we care, and again congress is allowed to pass stupid laws". Well, in this case Roberts decided it did matter, and that you can't be arbitrary and capricious WRT treating states differently, I guess viewing them as collections of people or something. The formulas were literally generations old and badly out of date. Congress could have, and still can, simply update the formulas so they make sense in today's context, or they could have treated all states equally by saying "gently caress it, you are all under preclearance, New York Alabama, doesn't matter, everyone." Rigel fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Roberts' opinion boils down to "well racism isn't a problem now like it used to be (it is) so the VRA is irrelevant." No, it was not. His opinion was "these formulas are badly out of date and do not make sense generations later. They are today arbitrary. Either update the formulas so they make sense today, or treat all states equally and we're fine." The congress can just simply say that all states must go through preclearance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Rigel posted:He was also correct in his observation. Then rule that all states must undergo preclearance until the formulas are updated. The VRA was a legislative remedy to violations of constitution. Eliminating the remedy across the board because it no longer made sense in some areas was a poor judicial remedy because it (very predictably) led to mass constitutional violations. It was purely racist, partisan BS and abdication of judicial responsibility. Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Well this is fun. https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/958787095354540033
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Then rule that all states must undergo preclearance until the formulas are updated. The supreme court can't do that. In this case the court could have either allowed the (extremely stupid and old) preclearance formula stand, or struck it down and told congress to try again. Here's what the map looked like in 2008. A couple counties bailed out before Roberts decision, but it pretty much still looked like this.  That map is loving idiotic today. There is no way in hell anyone can credibly say that the red and blue areas all need prior approval to change election laws but that all the tan areas are OK to make changes without permission. For starters, Kansas is the home of the infamous SoS Kobach. Rigel fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
axeil posted:Well this is fun. In case anyone's curious, the information this idiot is refusing to provide is available on the web 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court can't do that. In this case the court could have either allowed the (extremely stupid and old) preclearance formula stand, or struck it down and told congress to try again. I can see in the Constitution where it protects the rights of people to vote, unfortunately I can't see the part where it protects states' rights not to feel sad that they aren't allowed to suppress voters as easily as other states, maybe you/Roberts made that part up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:In case anyone's curious, the information this idiot is refusing to provide is available on the web Even better, the General Assembly already directed the Supreme Court to that data via a link in their response. So Senate President Pro Tempore Scarnati is the only one that submitted a letter is disregard of the court's order. Also, the PA Supreme Court still hasn't released their opinion yet. Could that spell issues going forward? The argument that the legislature still doesn't have guidance in creating a valid map makes some sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Even better, the General Assembly already directed the Supreme Court to that data via a link in their response. So Senate President Pro Tempore Scarnati is the only one that submitted a letter is disregard of the court's order. It's real dumb of them and I don't understand why their clerks weren't locked to their desks until they produced it a day or two ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You all assured me something like this wouldn't happen because it wasn't even open for review. For what it's worth I didn't 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
One year ago today Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court.  evilweasel posted:It's real dumb of them and I don't understand why their clerks weren't locked to their desks until they produced it a day or two ago. They’re still trying to find a legal justification for the decision, it’s understandably slowing things down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No, it was not. His opinion was "these formulas are badly out of date and do not make sense generations later. They are today arbitrary. Either update the formulas so they make sense today, or treat all states equally and we're fine." Those formulas were unanimously approved by Congress only shortly before his ruling. You're also deliberately ignoring that the courts are prohibited from acting the way Roberts did by a Constitutional Amendment in part because the courts proved themselves insufficient for the task. Or that Shelby County immediately started enacting racist voting laws as soon as the ruling came down. That Congress's renewal of the VRA should've put the entire nation under preclearance isn't a sufficient excuse for Roberts' actions and your defense of his blatantly political action in that ruling is vile. States with a racist past don't have a right to continue being racist simply because other states are being racist and didn't get punished when they should have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:One year ago today Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania's constitution requires that state legislative districts to be drawn in a certain way. the PA Constitution posted:The Commonwealth shall be divided into 50 senatorial and 203 representative districts, which shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district. Even the dissenting conservative judges acknowledged that this year's map likely violated the state's constitution, but wanted to "wait for guidance from the SC". So no, they're not "trying to find legal justification. They might be trying to cement guidance on what exactly constitutes a violation of PA's districting clause, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Pennsylvania's constitution requires that state legislative districts to be drawn in a certain way. You know someone's just going to "well actually" that this is about federal districts, right? And they may have a point. And I assume that's in the filing somewhere among "activist judges" copy and pasted for dozens of pages. Isn't part of / the whole issue that the SCOTUS isn't supposed to second guess state courts on state issues unless they're blatantly in conflict with the US Constitution? Which they're trying to get around by saying the state court isn't supposed to do X. Which is why I have no reason to expect the "conservatives" on the court won't make another "states rights unless the states do something we don't like" decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
I wouldn't really pay attention to the guy obviously trolling. As to the basis of the court's decision, it's not like they need to do their own research from scratch, the petitioners did that. If they were feeling exceptionally lazy they could just say "for the reasons stated in the petitioner's memorandum of law dated..." but they need to get around to saying something. The arguments over "we don't know what is legal" are nonsense because the petitioners challenged the map on specific grounds and the court obviously ruled on those grounds. The state legislature probably wants to know where, precisely, the line is so they can go as close as possible but not cross it - but there's a democratic governor so that's moot, he'll just veto a less aggressive Republican gerrymander. So the state legislature doesn't really need to figure out exactly how much gerrymandering is too much, because as a practical matter they're not gonna manage to get a gerrymander through. But they did give the state legislature only three weeks to comply, and if the court is insisting everyone else work on a tight timeline the court should be doing it as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:But they did give the state legislature only three weeks to comply, and if the court is insisting everyone else work on a tight timeline the court should be doing it as well. I think it would be worth the opinion getting stayed for a cycle, if the PA Supreme Court needs extra time to write an opinion that's harder for SCOTUS to eviscerate and set precedent for other state supreme courts. In addition, it's not like it's hard to draw districts using REDMAP, or other software. I'm sure the GOP's consultant could bang out a non-gerrymandered map that keeps all incumbents in a couple days. The hard part is that they also want to be pushing the limit of what is constitutional. 10% wasted votes? 20% wasted votes? What about 15% wasted votes, but all the precincts are literally salamander-shaped, what about 10% wasted votes but they look reasonably compact, etc. When the GOP's bite at the apple of redistricting fails hard enough to not past constitutional muster, I don't think it's unreasonable to have them do something constitutional quickly, instead of giving them more time to find something that's just barely constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:You know someone's just going to "well actually" that this is about federal districts, right? I mean, they might but wouldn't it be patently ridiculous? The only connection between state districting and federal districting would be from the federal side, through the 14th Amendment (or apparently maybe the 1st) or maybe other relevant laws that I'm unaware of. But I don't see any relevant connection that could supersede Pennsylvania's constitutional districting requirements, unless you want to argue that requiring compact districts that don't break up townships is somehow itself in violation of the 14th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I mean, they might but wouldn't it be patently ridiculous? The only connection between state districting and federal districting would be from the federal side, through the 14th Amendment (or apparently maybe the 1st) or maybe other relevant laws that I'm unaware of. But I don't see any relevant connection that could supersede Pennsylvania's constitutional districting requirements, unless you want to argue that requiring compact districts that don't break up townships is somehow itself in violation of the 14th Amendment. That may be the point I was badly trying to make? If the PA court declares that also applies to federal house districting and they base it solely on the PA constitution it's a state matter. Until it isn't because ~*~originalism~*~ or something. Devor posted:I think it would be worth the opinion getting stayed for a cycle, if the PA Supreme Court needs extra time to write an opinion that's harder for SCOTUS to eviscerate and set precedent for other state supreme courts. This is what always confuses me about gerrymandering. Even in some hypothetical where everyone agrees on some definition of what a "fair" district looks like it seems like it would take like an hour to draw districts to that standard that maximally benefits the party drawing them. Which is probably why it's left vague and subject to endless lawsuits and bullshit and barely euclidean geometry. God Bless America. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:This is what always confuses me about gerrymandering. Even in some hypothetical where everyone agrees on some definition of what a "fair" district looks like it seems like it would take like an hour to draw districts to that standard that maximally benefits the party drawing them. This is why the correct response is to actually not let any party draw them, and have some kind of non-partisan panel draw the district boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:That may be the point I was badly trying to make? If the PA court declares that also applies to federal house districting and they base it solely on the PA constitution it's a state matter. Until it isn't because ~*~originalism~*~ or something. The PA SC isn't going to declare that this also applies federal districting because it doesn't apply to federal districting. The PA constitutional rules are explicitly for state house districting. It's not a federal matter unless one side or the other wants to make a claim on federal laws or federal constitutional protections (E: whoops, misread your "originalism" statement). Polygynous posted:This is what always confuses me about gerrymandering. Even in some hypothetical where everyone agrees on some definition of what a "fair" district looks like it seems like it would take like an hour to draw districts to that standard that maximally benefits the party drawing them. Presumably, a reasonably agreed-upon definition of "fair" would result in maximal benefits that are much smaller than under the current free-for-all system. Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This is why the correct response is to actually not let any party draw them, and have some kind of non-partisan panel draw the district boundaries. Yeah, that too. Or PR or something while we're at it. Oh well. Stickman posted:Presumably, a reasonably agreed-upon definition of "fair" would result in maximal benefits that are much smaller than under the current free-for-all system. Sure, it just seems likely this would end up with a 35 or 40 seat majority rather than the 45 in the current congress. Great job, everyone. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Sure, it just seems likely this would end up with a 35 or 40 seat majority rather than the 45 in the current congress. Great job, everyone. Part of the problem is that it's mathematically impossible to reconcile regional representation with proportional representation in a single system. I personally think that scrapping districts entirely and moving to proportional representation would fix a lot of the problems, though there would need to be some region-based advisory system and apportionment rules. Of course that's not something that the courts have remotely any say over, unless they want to take the radical step of declaring district-based representation to be in violation of the 14th amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Devor posted:I think it would be worth the opinion getting stayed for a cycle, if the PA Supreme Court needs extra time to write an opinion that's harder for SCOTUS to eviscerate and set precedent for other state supreme courts. The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to reverse their precedent because they don't like it. It's a good thing they're mandating the map be fixed now, they just also need to get the opinion done. The GOP's consultant can draft whatever maps he wants, but the Democratic governor can also hire someone to tell if it's gerrymandered and veto it, so it's sort of academic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Part of the problem is that it's mathematically impossible to reconcile regional representation with proportional representation in a single system. I personally think that scrapping districts entirely and moving to proportional representation would fix a lot of the problems, though there would need to be some region-based advisory system and apportionment rules. Of course that's not something that the courts have remotely any say over, unless they want to take the radical step of declaring district-based representation to be in violation of the 14th amendment. The House doesn't need to be proportionally represented, because at the end of the day it usually doesn't matter. But it's important that the party that gets the most votes tends to get the most seats. It doesn't really matter if 55% of the vote gets you 75% of the seats instead, so long as it gets you 51% or more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The House doesn't need to be proportionally represented, because at the end of the day it usually doesn't matter. But it's important that the party that gets the most votes tends to get the most seats. It doesn't really matter if 55% of the vote gets you 75% of the seats instead, so long as it gets you 51% or more. That's fine if you want to keep a two party system, but proportional representation would be a step towards moving away from that. Also, it's still impossible to guarantee that the majority of votes translates to a majority of seats in district-based system. Stickman fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The House doesn't need to be proportionally represented, because at the end of the day it usually doesn't matter. But it's important that the party that gets the most votes tends to get the most seats. It doesn't really matter if 55% of the vote gets you 75% of the seats instead, so long as it gets you 51% or more. Like in 2012 when the Republicans won 242 seats with 58.2M votes and the Democrats won 209 Seats with 59.6M votes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Part of the problem is that it's mathematically impossible to reconcile regional representation with proportional representation in a single system. I personally think that scrapping districts entirely and moving to proportional representation would fix a lot of the problems, though there would need to be some region-based advisory system and apportionment rules. Congratulations, you've just allowed senior politicians to almost entirely insulate themselves from there being any personal consequences for what they do. The Netherlands uses a system very much like what you're describing to elect its lower house; their electoral districts are almost entirely vestigial because seats are allocated based solely on the national share of the vote. Each party puts forward a big long numbered list of candidates, most people vote for the party list without any further thought, and when seats are allocated, the first seat for your party goes to candidate #1 on the list, the second seat to #2 on the list, and so on down until you run out of seats. What this means for a large party is that no matter how cretinously candidate #4 may have acted, it's virtually impossible for #4 to get personally voted out at the next election. #4 has no individual constituency of people who can choose to vote for them, or not. #4 will only get the boot if their party is completely wiped out. They have no reason to ever go and talk to ordinary people, or take notice of a "call your representative!" campaign. As long as they personally can stay in favour with the party machine and retain their position on the list, they don't ever have to pay attention to the electorate. How do you like the Rolodex test now? Don't get fooled by the promise of the "open list". In many systems it's possible to vote in one of two ways: either generically "for the Good Party", or individually for John Nice, #52 on the Good Party list. This doesn't affect how many seats the Good Party wins, only who might fill them. When the votes are in, you look at all the Good Party's votes and divide them by the number of seats to be filled; this is the quota. If John Nice has more individual votes than the quota, he jumps over any candidate ahead of him on the list who received fewer individual votes. Which is a Good Thing (ho ho ho), but it's far more a way of promoting people up the list than it is a way of demoting them down it. You can't just say "Vote John Nice to get rid of Dave Nasty!" if Dave Nasty is #3 on the Good list and John Nice is #53. If everyone casts a personal vote for John Nice, sure, he jumps over Dave Nasty, but Dave Nasty only drops to #4. To get rid of Dave Nasty you have to organise enough people to cast personal votes for enough different candidates to push Dave Nasty all the way out of the bottom of the list, while ensuring that all your spoilers individually meet the quota. There's a lot of people talking about "proportional representation" as a generic cure-all, and it really isn't. There are many flavours of PR and most of them have their own issues and quirks, to the point where you may well lose on the swings what you gain on the roundabouts, and end up with a system that's still screwy and annoying, just in a different way. It took the Netherlands 209 days after the last election to form a government; this was a new record, by one day. Verkeerschaos! Stickman posted:That's fine if you want to keep a two party system, but proportional representation would be a step towards moving away from that. Also, it's still impossible to guarantee that the majority of votes translates to a majority of seats in district-based system. Zee Germans (of course) have an answer to this one; they use a system usually called in English Mixed-Member Proportional, which tries to eat its cake and have it, and does a shockingly good job of it. In an MMP chamber you first vote for district representatives and look at the result. Then, additional representatives are added to the chamber off a list to make the final chamber as proportionally representative of the vote as possible; the Bundestag is usually within about 5%. Obvious downsides; the chamber's size can vary by hundreds of members depending on how much the constituency vote needs to be counterbalanced (in the current Bundestag there are 299 district members and 410 list members), and if (as most MMP chambers do) you give voters a district vote and a national vote (so you can vote for Patricia Caring of the Huggy-Feely Party as your local representative and also say you want the Good Party to lead the next national government), there are some potentially nasty ways of exploiting the compensatory mechanisms that have blown up chambers in Albania and Venezuela. (Oh yeah, and they're currently on day 131 without a government because nobody wants to be in any of the coalitions that you might expect to form.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
The American public largely hates Congress but likes Their Guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Congratulations, you've just allowed senior politicians to almost entirely insulate themselves from there being any personal consequences for what they do. Yes but have you considered that in the US a party can lose the popular vote and take a majority in the House? Seems bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Congratulations, you've just allowed senior politicians to almost entirely insulate themselves from there being any personal consequences for what they do. Benefits of a bicameral legislature: we can keep the senate running on internal combustion and shift the house over to a nice modern tesla and end up with the worst of both worlds!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Congressional legislation could require that each state elect its individual senators via STV though, correct? Theoretically you could create an amendment to increase the number of senators per state to 20 so any 5% minority could get elected, but you're still giving a small state bias.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The American public largely hates Congress but likes Their Guy. Depending on how gerrymandered a district is, somewhere between 30 and 50% of Americans voted explicitly against "their" representative. In a proportional system with 20 members per district that number would be less than 5%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:STV in the senate doesn't get you much proportionality. It's a highly malapportioned body with only 2 winners per district, so any minority has to be >33% of the vote in a given state to get a seat. Sure, but if the house is fully proportional and the Senate is elected with stv, you've *dramatically* reduced the current problems. There's still some small state bias in the Senate sure but it'd be a vast improvement over what we have now. Basically I'm trying to answer "what is the maximum amount of improvement possible in our current system without a constitutional amendment," because I think such amending impracticable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:A proportionally elected congress would have more Americans claiming someone as Their Guy. https://ballotpedia.org/New_York%27s_15th_Congressional_District_election,_2016 That's not a good or bad thing, that's just a district that really like their representative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Polygynous posted:Yeah, that too. Or PR or something while we're at it. Oh well. Fairly drawn congressional districts done by a non-partisan board using a set formula like in California would mean Pelosi is Speaker of the House right now. The GOP's House majority exists solely because of Gerrymandering. Their Senate majority is what it is because of state level activity that let them put their thumb on the scales for statewide races too. IE: voter suppression aimed at Democrat-heavy voting blocs such as closing down DMVs while also passing voter ID laws. This is why I'm skeptical of Kennedy siding with liberals to strike down Gerrymandering. There is a not insignificant chance that doing so guts the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 18:27
|
|