Posted on 11/04/2010 9:43:36 PM PDT by Libloather
Will Redistricting Be a Bloodbath for Democrats?
Republicans See Historic Victories; Gain Control of At Least 19 Democratic-Held State Legislatures
By HUMA KHAN
Nov. 4, 2010
Republicans gained a historic edge over Democrats in state legislature elections that will have national implications for years to come.
State legislatures in 44 states are responsible for one of the most important political processes: drawing district boundaries for the U.S. House of Representatives.
In a process that usually triggers partisan bickering, the reigning party usually has the upper hand, especially if the governor is also from the same party and cannot veto the legislature's decisions.
Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures.
Republicans haven't controlled as many state legislatures since 1928.
Across the country, the map for state legislatures has turned noticeably red as Republicans now control 55 chambers, with Democrats at 38 and the remaining yet to be decided. At the beginning of this week, Democrats controlled 60 of the country's state legislative chambers and Republicans 36.
Tuesday also was a historic day for many state legislatures. In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Bloodbath? in a word...yes.
This is RAT Mel Watt's district. Many years ago, I heard stories of this mess being only SIX FEET WIDE in certain spots. I'm pretty sure not much has changed.
Like the cartoon!
Now to listen to the liberal spin this it was only the House but it was so so much more.
Yeah, but will that only bring more cases to the SCOTUS for adjusting?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-204.ZS.html
bookmark
That’s actually a district crafted to give minorities (in this case, blacks) representation in Congress. Because North Carolina has many mid-sized cities (in this district, Charlotte, Concord, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro) with considerable but not overwhelming black populations, the legislature had to combine predominantly black neighborhoods in several cities without including enough non-blacks to deny blacks a majority in the district.
At one time, this district also included black communities in Burlington, Durham, Raleigh, and Gastonia if I recall correctly, but Sandra Day O’Conner declared that monstrosity an unconstitutional gerrymander while simultaneously holding that a district without a black majority also constituted an unconstitutional gerrymander. Justice O’Conner, however, approved this particular configuration as meeting the Constitution, of which she represented the living, breathing embodiment on this issue.
The doctrine in question, taken from the Constitution, requires states to construct a minimum number of majority minority districts without considering their minority character in so constructing but rather using the political character and voting behavior of the communities in question as the primary factor. This doctrine does not allow for a result that does not include the minimum requisite number of majority minority districts in proportion to the minority population of the state in question.
The Republicans need to be absolutely merciless when it comes to this redistricting.
Tea-Party
Mandate.
And not just redistricting.....new Pub governors and legislative majorities means VOTER ID in a lot of places where fraud is a problem.
Love that one! Thanks!
I’d like to see what the GOP can do with redistricting in the Tar Heel State, on both the federal and state office level. My guess is they can redistrict at the state level with devastating effects to the Left.
I’m skeptical. It will likely get rid of a few reliably Democrat districts, but it might hurt some strong Republican districts, particularly if the field of Republican candidates is weak. A net improvement and a help for Republicans in any case.
The stupid Sandra O Connor gave Republicans the means to pack Democrats in minority-majority districts... that results in the election of few Democrats! The effin’ RINO didn’t see that one coming. As stands, the Supreme Court should have found the partisan gerrymander unconstitutional, period.
Indeed.The voter ID will do more to eliminate the rat cheat bastards way of winning elections.This will be sweet.
For example, if a state has 9 districts and 2 cities, wouldn't it be better to create 2 districts around the cities and 7 around the rural/suburban areas? This way the state would have a definite 7-2 GOP advantage rather than to split the cities up and make all 9 districts competitive and vulnerable?
Gerrymandered districts are no guarantee of safety. Democrats were tossed out of districts they held for years.
I prefer districts drawn to nonpartisan and objective criteria that value fair representation, territorial contiguity and ensure competitive elections. Partisan advantage and incumbent protection should be irrelevant to the redistricting process.
In other words, every voter should get the chance to see his candidate win. In gerrymandered districts, people of the minority party stay home because their vote counts for nothing.
That needs to change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.