Supreme Court blocks redrawing of North Carolina congressional maps

[Ransom]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower court's order for North Carolina to rework its congressional map because Republicans violated the Constitution by drawing electoral districts intended to maximize their party's chances of winning.

Gerrymander them into extinction! This is why the Gorsuch's are put on the court.


The conservative-majority court granted a bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to suspend the Jan. 9 order by a federal court panel in Greensboro that gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly until Jan. 24 to come up with a new map for U.S. House of Representatives districts.
Two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, objected to the high court's action.

Ruth and Sonia. Ruth Bader long overdue to retire......Sonia is a liberal hack, the worst judge on the bench.

The Supreme Court's decision to stay the order reduces the chance that the current district lines will be altered ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. The court offered no reason for its decision.

They did too offer a reason, the lower court was wrong and needed to be overturned. Thus.....kaboom.

And Trump said we'd get sick of winning.....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-blocks-redrawing-north-carolina-congressional-maps-131518619.html

[Common]

Thats a huge blow to the vote the dead and illegal immigrant party

[zelmo1234]

I remember back in the good ole days when the Democrats held most of the state legislatures, You know back when Gerrymandering was a good thing.

LOL

[ripmeister]

Gerrymandering by either side is undemocratic. A sad state of affairs.

[Grokmaster]

Gerrymandering by either side is undemocratic. A sad state of affairs.

Gerrymandering is bizarre, disjointed districts without consistent geographical continuity, to achieve a demographic majority.


Please explain how THIS looks gerrymandered; the districts are OBVIOUSLY fine; the suit was nothing more than an attempt of the Fraudocrats to steal an election...AGAIN.


22341

[Peter1469]

This shows that SCOTUS has no problem with partisan gerrymandering. They do have a problem with racial gerrymandering.

[Bethere]

This shows that SCOTUS has no problem with partisan gerrymandering. They do have a problem with racial gerrymandering.

It's a stay.

Lol.

I'll always be here to explain the fine points of law to you.

[Peter1469]

It's a stay.

Lol.

I'll always be here to explain the fine points of law to you.

Do you understand the legal standard for such a stay? A temporary restraining order. TRO.

[Bethere]

Do you understand the legal standard for such a stay? A temporary restraining order. TRO.

A simple thank you would have worked.

[Captdon]

I fail to see where being a Democrat or a Republican entitles you to anything. Where would independents come in . Who is a fair decider? Elections mean something.

It's not okay in NC but fine in CA?

[Peter1469]

A simple thank you would have worked.

Thank you for your participation. But you don't know what you are talking about.

[jimmyz]

Thank you for your participation. But you don't know what you are talking about.
... again.

[Bethere]

Thank you for your participation. But you don't know what you are talking about.
Of course I do.

[Grokmaster]

Of course I do.

The congressional districts will remain as they are, almost assuredly through the midterms...

[Kacper]

The congressional districts will remain as they are, almost assuredly through the midterms...
Undoubtedly that was why the SCOTUS acted. There was a lot of concern about people even running for office without knowing which Congressional District they lived in. IIRC the most recent proposal rejected by the judge was rejected because they more or less just threw something together to meet the deadline and the judge who was upset that they were not more deliberate and purposeful in designing a new map. Basically the judge was mad that they didn't purposefully and deliberately design it the way their bias wanted it done.

[Grokmaster]

Undoubtedly that was why the SCOTUS acted. There was a lot of concern about people even running for office without knowing which Congressional District they lived in. IIRC the most recent proposal rejected by the judge was rejected because they more or less just threw something together to meet the deadline and the judge who was upset that they were not more deliberate and purposeful in designing a new map. Basically the judge was mad that they didn't purposefully and deliberately design it the way their bias wanted it done.


Look at the map of the N.Carolina Congressional districts I provided earlier in the thread. It is NOT a gerrymandered state, by any means. There are, maybe two small spots that are even remotely asymmetrical to the rest of their district. Period.

Tiny parts of #4 and #13...and even that's stretching it, IMHO.

Here, I'll save you the voyage:

22345

[Peter1469]

Look at the map of the N.Carolina Congressional districts I provided earlier in the thread. It is NOT a gerrymandered state, by any means. There are, maybe two small spots that are even remotely asymmetrical to the rest of their district. Period.

Here, I'll save you the voyage:

22345
That, and partisan gerrymandering is sort of the point. Citizens elect a state legislature and they create the voting districts every 10 years. Because the Dems where destroyed at the state level they are looking to the courts to expand the case law regarding gerrymandering to political party.

SCOTUS gave a powerful message- no.

[Kacper]

Look at the map of the N.Carolina Congressional districts I provided earlier in the thread. It is NOT a gerrymandered state, by any means. There are, maybe two small spots that are even remotely asymmetrical to the rest of their district. Period.

Tiny parts of #4 and #13...and even that's stretching it, IMHO.

Here, I'll save you the voyage:

22345
And after the SCOTUS put a hold on the order that same federal court panel has gone back and ordered them to use a map designed by a Stanford professor which probably violates all sorts of election laws, so e weill see how this plays out, but the federal panel is definitely got an agenda:

http://www.journalnow.com/ap/state/judges-ok-north-carolina-legislative-map-changes-by-expert/article_40768f37-72fc-5a4b-8f94-50fff991d6e2.html

A panel of federal judges has ordered North Carolina lawmakers to use maps created by a Stanford University law professor in the coming elections — in the second ruling this week on a state redistricting case.The ruling, released on Friday, comes less than a month before the filing period opens Feb. 12 for candidates seeking office in the state Senate and House of Representatives.
The ruling has an impact on districts in eight counties — Senate districts in Cumberland, Guilford and Hoke, and House districts in Bladen, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Sampson, Wake and Wayne counties. All other districts remain as adopted by lawmakers in late August.
It caps a week of much redistricting news for North Carolina. Less than 24 hours earlier, early Thursday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the effects of a ruling in a different gerrymander case in which a different three-judge panel found North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts to be unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.
Now Republican lawmakers plan to appeal Friday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

[Grokmaster]

And after the SCOTUS put a hold on the order that same federal court panel has gone back and ordered them to use a map designed by a Stanford professor which probably violates all sorts of election laws, so e weill see how this plays out, but the federal panel is definitely got an agenda:

http://www.journalnow.com/ap/state/judges-ok-north-carolina-legislative-map-changes-by-expert/article_40768f37-72fc-5a4b-8f94-50fff991d6e2.html

A panel of federal judges has ordered North Carolina lawmakers to use maps created by a Stanford University law professor in the coming elections — in the second ruling this week on a state redistricting case.The ruling, released on Friday, comes less than a month before the filing period opens Feb. 12 for candidates seeking office in the state Senate and House of Representatives.
The ruling has an impact on districts in eight counties — Senate districts in Cumberland, Guilford and Hoke, and House districts in Bladen, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Sampson, Wake and Wayne counties. All other districts remain as adopted by lawmakers in late August.
It caps a week of much redistricting news for North Carolina. Less than 24 hours earlier, early Thursday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the effects of a ruling in a different gerrymander case in which a different three-judge panel found North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts to be unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.
Now Republican lawmakers plan to appeal Friday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

Pretty obvious what the agenda is: STEALING THE ELECTION.

[Kacper]

Pretty obvious what the agenda is: STEALING THE ELECTION.
Perhaps but the compactness test the GOP argues is how it should be done just feeds into the racism thing because the south is still such a racially stratified community.

[Grokmaster]

Perhaps but the compactness test the GOP argues is how it should be done just feeds into the racism thing because the south is still such a racially stratified community.

Not true at all. The South is BY FAR, the most integrated region of the United States. BY FAR. Nowhere else even close. Blacks and whites have been living side by side for about 60+ years there...a few generations...

Compact districts are NOT gerrymandered...they are efficient. Combining areas not really near each other, is gerrymandering.


This is what TRULY, AGGREGIOUSLY GERRYMANDERED districts look like:

Maryland's 3rd district ( democrat rep.)

22350

Texas 33rd district (democrat rep. )
22351

Pennsylvania's 7th district (GOP rep.)

22352




See... NOTHING in N.Carolina even remotely resembles these.

The Fraudocrats are trying to use their hand-selected judges to hand them the election...

[Kacper]

Not true at all. The South is BY FAR, the most integrated region of the United States. BY FAR. Nowhere else even close. Blacks and whites have been living side by side for about 60+ years there...a few generations...

Compact districts are NOT gerrymandered...they are efficient. Combining areas not really near each other, is gerrymandering.
Perhaps you should dig a little deeper. This lawsuit was brought by the NAACP because most blacks were compacted into 3 congressional districts. They are only "efficient" to the extent that they insure republicans more seats in NC congressional delegation in the view of the NAACP and the three judge federal panel. That said, I do not legally see how it matters now that the enforcement provisions of the VRA is history. It is a political question and the courts really have no business intervening as nobody is being disenfranchised as long as they still get the right to vote. There is no right to win and there is no right of political parties under the Constitution.

[Grokmaster]

Perhaps you should dig a little deeper. This lawsuit was brought by the NAACP because most blacks were compacted into 3 congressional districts. They are only "efficient" to the extent that they insure republicans more seats in NC congressional delegation in the view of the NAACP and the three judge federal panel. That said, I do not legally see how it matters now that the enforcement provisions of the VRA is history. It is a political question and the courts really have no business intervening as nobody is being disenfranchised as long as they still get the right to vote. There is no right to win and there is no right of political parties under the Constitution.
If they are being accurately represented geographically, without weirded out, twisted extrapolations like those illustrated in the above post, ( # 21 ), then they have no argument.

They are arguing FOR GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS, not against them...on racial grounds.

[Kacper]

If they are being accurately represented geographically, without weirded out, twisted extrapolations like those illustrated in the above post, ( # 21 ), then they have no argument.

They are arguing FOR GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS, not against them...on racial grounds.

For or against is a matter of perspective. The lines have to be drawn somewhere. In NC it is "compactness" in Virginia it is "urban vs. rural". You certainly cannot argue that Virginia's 5th District is designed the way it is because of the love of "compactness" by the GOP. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Virginia_US_Congressional_District_5_%28since_2013 %29.tif/lossless-page1-1920px-Virginia_US_Congressional_District_5_%28since_2013 %29.tif.png

[Grokmaster]

For or against is a matter of perspective. The lines have to be drawn somewhere. In NC it is "compactness" in Virginia it is "urban vs. rural". You certainly cannot argue that Virginia's 5th District is designed the way it is because of the love of "compactness" by the GOP. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Virginia_US_Congressional_District_5_(since_2013). tif/lossless-page1-1920px-Virginia_US_Congressional_District_5_(since_2013). tif.png

Yeah, continuous with no twisting and turning to form them; LOOK AT THE ILLUSTRATIONS I PROVIDED. No "opinion" about it...RACE cannot be a consideration.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps you should dig a little deeper. This lawsuit was brought by the NAACP because most blacks were compacted into 3 congressional districts. They are only "efficient" to the extent that they insure republicans more seats in NC congressional delegation in the view of the NAACP and the three judge federal panel. That said, I do not legally see how it matters now that the enforcement provisions of the VRA is history. It is a political question and the courts really have no business intervening as nobody is being disenfranchised as long as they still get the right to vote. There is no right to win and there is no right of political parties under the Constitution.


The lawsuit was based off partisan gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering.

[Grokmaster]

The lawsuit was based off partisan gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering.

And an examination of the actual districting gives lie to that claim....

[Kacper]

The lawsuit was based off partisan gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article161495058.html


"...The requests were included in documents filed in federal court this week outlining the NAACP’s interest in supporting the voters whose lawsuit led to the finding that 28 of the 170 North Carolina legislative districts (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article154384454.html) are illegal racial gerrymanders."

[Grokmaster]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article161495058.html


"...The requests were included in documents filed in federal court this week outlining the NAACP’s interest in supporting the voters whose lawsuit led to the finding that 28 of the 170 North Carolina legislative districts (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article154384454.html) are illegal racial gerrymanders."

If they are not radically altered geographically... they have no claim. The districts look quite legit. Once again, please LOOK AT THE MAP, ,and tell me which of those districts looks "gerrymandered".



North Carolina DOES NOT HAVE 170 US Congressional districts. They have 13.

[Kacper]

Yeah, continuous with no twisting and turning to form them; LOOK AT THE ILLUSTRATIONS I PROVIDED. No "opinion" about it...RACE cannot be a consideration.

Why should I when you did not look at mine, not to mention that you totally ignored how it blows "compactness" out of the water. Virginia's 5th almost divides the state in half to pack enough good people in it to insure a GOP rep gets the seat by neutralizing the two left leaning cities in that district. Your "no twisting and turning" equally is not true because right between those two left leaning cities is Jerry Falwell's Utopia that the lines curve around to make sure it can be used to offset them damn liberals in Roanoke and Harrisonburg in the 6th district. Lord forbid a compact district put Harrisonburg and Charlottesville in the same CD cause the GOP would never win it again.

[Grokmaster]

Why should I when you did not look at mine, not to mention that you totally ignored how it blows "compactness" out of the water. Virginia's 5th almost divides the state in half to pack enough good people in it to insure a GOP rep gets the seat by neutralizing the two left leaning cities in that district. Your "no twisting and turning" equally is not true because right between those two left leaning cities is Jerry Falwell's Utopia that the lines curve around to make sure it can be used to offset them damn liberals in Roanoke and Harrisonburg in the 6th district. Lord forbid a compact district put Harrisonburg and Charlottesville in the same CD cause the GOP would never win it again.

I am not sure what your article is referring to, as North Carolina DOES NOT HAVE 170 SEATS in the US HOUSE...they have 13....therefore THIRTEEN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS...not 170.


Your article refers to some other complaint, NOT the US House districts....yeah, I read it; maybe you should have....

[Peter1469]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article161495058.html


"...The requests were included in documents filed in federal court this week outlining the NAACP’s interest in supporting the voters whose lawsuit led to the finding that 28 of the 170 North Carolina legislative districts (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article154384454.html) are illegal racial gerrymanders."
SCOTUS action was based on partisan gerrymandering.


The law is clear on racial gerrymandering. Can't do it.

[Kacper]

If they are not radically altered geographically... they have no claim. The districts look quite legit. Once again, please LOOK AT THE MAP, ,and tell me which of those districts looks "gerrymandered".



North Carolina DOES NOT HAVE 170 US Congressional districts. They have 13.

North Carolina has 170 legislative districts. And yes of its congressional districts, the court has determined that they are illegally gerrymandered. Both sides gerrymander. I find it amusing that you think the GOP in NC doesn't. I bet you think the GOP never gerrymanders. Only the democrats gerrymander!!!!

[Kacper]

SCOTUS action was based on partisan gerrymandering.


The law is clear on racial gerrymandering. Can't do it.
It is a distinction without a difference when the effect is the same, and all the supreme court did was put the order on hold. It did not decide the issue either way.

[Kacper]

I am not sure what your article is referring to, as North Carolina DOES NOT HAVE 170 SEATS in the US HOUSE...they have 13....therefore THIRTEEN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS...not 170.


Your article refers to some other complaint, NOT the US House districts....yeah, I read it; maybe you should have....
If you read it then you should know what it is referring to since it very clearly says the NAACP filed a lawsuit challenging both the congressional and legislative districts. The GOP and you are floundering. It is much easier to say, "To the victor goes the spoils" or "Elections have consequences" if you prefer than to try to pretend the GOP has clean hands doing the Lord's work.

[Grokmaster]

North Carolina has 170 legislative districts. And yes of its congressional districts, the court has determined that they are illegally gerrymandered. Both sides gerrymander. I find it amusing that you think the GOP in NC doesn't. I bet you think the GOP never gerrymanders. Only the democrats gerrymander!!!!
Then North Carolina would have 170 seats in the US House. They do not. Your article refers to STATE GOVERNMENT, not the US Congressional districts that this thread is about, of which there are THIRTEEN= 13 seats in the US House.

This is not open for debate..it IS. Read the OP link...look at the US Congressional district map.

[Grokmaster]

It is a distinction without a difference when the effect is the same, and all the supreme court did was put the order on hold. It did not decide the issue either way.
It is absolutely different., Still waiting for your declaration of which of N.Carolina's THIRTEEN US HOUSE DISTRICTS you consider "gerrymandered".

[Grokmaster]

If you read it then you should know what it is referring to since it very clearly says the NAACP filed a lawsuit challenging both the congressional and legislative districts. The GOP and you are floundering. It is much easier to say, "To the victor goes the spoils" or "Elections have consequences" if you prefer than to try to pretend the GOP has clean hands doing the Lord's work.

You're veering off the rails, badly.

"North Carolina is currently divided into 13 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 Census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the State's increase in population."

Still waiting for your declaration of which of N.Carolina's THIRTEEN US HOUSE DISTRICTS you consider "gerrymandered".


LET'S SEE IT.

[Kacper]

It is absolutely different., Still waiting for your declaration of which of N.Carolina's THIRTEEN US HOUSE DISTRICTS you consider "gerrymandered".

All of them

[Grokmaster]

All of them

How so? They are geographically consistent. Should they be GERRYMANDERED, to favor one race over another, in your view?


You're confused. Your Big Link is about the STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS...not the topic of this thread.

[Kacper]

You're veering off the rails, badly.

"North Carolina is currently divided into 13 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 Census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the State's increase in population."

Still waiting for your declaration of which of N.Carolina's THIRTEEN US HOUSE DISTRICTS you consider "gerrymandered".


LET'S SEE IT.
As I said, All of them. The two parties in NC have been fighting this battle since the 90's, and non-stop since the last census. The SCOTUS already tossed out two proposed CD's last year saying that the GOP had illegally overly relied on race in drawing them. It has been a non-stop back and forth since and the GOP's "compactness" crap has already failed. It failed in the 90's when they were on the other side, and it will fail again and again and again. I am fairly certain the justices of the supreme court are getting tired of hearing "gerrymander" and "North Carolina" in the same sentence. This will not end well for the GOP nationally when the SCOTUS finally slams the window shut on them just to be done with these case. The NC GOP is inevitably going to get a very big bright line ruling against them if they continue this nonsense.

[Kacper]

Then North Carolina would have 170 seats in the US House. They do not. Your article refers to STATE GOVERNMENT, not the US Congressional districts that this thread is about, of which there are THIRTEEN= 13 seats in the US House.

This is not open for debate..it IS. Read the OP link...look at the US Congressional district map.
The article you allegedly read that allegedly didn't explain it to you clearly states, "The NAACP has filed its own lawsuits challenging the legislative and congressional district lines drawn by the Republican-led legislature in 2011. Republicans gained control of both General Assembly chambers in the 2010 election.

[Kacper]

How so? They are geographically consistent. Should they be GERRYMANDERED, to favor one race over another, in your view?


You're confused. Your Big Link is about the STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS...not the topic of this thread.

The independent commission that looked at NC without looking at political affiliations came up with a more compact map with a lot less blurry lines across county lines:

22363

[Grokmaster]

The article you allegedly read that allegedly didn't explain it to you clearly states, "The NAACP has filed its own lawsuits challenging the legislative and congressional district lines drawn by the Republican-led legislature in 2011. Republicans gained control of both General Assembly chambers in the 2010 election.

Once again, you are confused. The current US House Congressional Districts were DRAWN UP IN 2013.

[Grokmaster]

The independent commission that looked at NC without looking at political affiliations came up with a more compact map with a lot less blurry lines across county lines:

22363

Looks far more gerrymandered than the current districts. By "independent panel", they mean DEMOCRATS.

Look at the "reaching" they did in districts 6 & 8, to "create" more districts that will vote democrat.

I agree with the USSC.

[Peter1469]

It is a distinction without a difference when the effect is the same, and all the supreme court did was put the order on hold. It did not decide the issue either way.
Right.

And SCOTUS will not rule against partisan gerrymandering.

[Kacper]

Right.

And SCOTUS will not rule against partisan gerrymandering.

It has already rejected two NC Congressional Districts in 2017 in racial grounds. there is no reason to think they will not question their motives in the next bite at that apple.

[Grokmaster]

It has already rejected two NC Congressional Districts in 2017 in racial grounds. there is no reason to think they will not question their motives in the next bite at that apple.

The USSC did no such thing.