SCOTUS on Verge of Tossing CA House Districts

Breitbart ^ | 03/21/2015 | Jon Fleischman

[E. Pluribus Unum]

For nearly a year, the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission has been gyrating its way through the intricate legal processes of the United States Supreme Court. While a growing number of political insiders are becoming aware of this case, it is shocking to me how many well-informed California politicos are unaware that there is a strong possibility–I would actually say a strong likelihood–that the highest court in the land will strike down a ballot measure, Prop. 106, passed by Arizona voters back in November of 2000, which created an independent state commission to draw that state’s congressional districts. Sound an awful lot like California’s Prop. 20 passed in 2010? It sure does.

[DoodleDawg]

Which means that defining district borders would go back to the legislature? Dominated by Democrats? How many house seats will that cost the Republicans?

[marktwain]

Probably none. The “independent commission” is also dominated by Democrats.

We saw this in Arizona. The commission was supposed to be non-partisan. It was simply stacked with Democrats at the first opportunity. They broke the rules for supposed independence with impunity, and refused to be accountable. When called on it, the shredded records and pushed back harder.

These so-called “independent” commissions are a joke, in my experience. All they do is provide cover for Democrats, because the media is in the tank for progressives.

[Svartalfiar]

I like the idea of having the computer generated districts, that account for most geographically centered area, etc.

The ironic thing about this is that the whole gerrymandering thing came about because there weren’t enough minorities in office. So they made special districts based on racial makeups in order to add a couple minorities to Congress.

[I am Richard Brandon]

" the media is in the tank for progressives."

Could a Conservative leaning broadsheet, funded by advertising (probably not) and donations rock the MSM in the same way that Fox has rocked the alphabet TV channels.

[kvanbrunt2]

you should see mine no. 1 in PA it goes from Montgomery County north of Philly thru my house down broad street to west philly chester trainer and ends up at the delaware state line. drawn with enough republicans to make sure they can;’t take any district in philly

[marktwain]

“Could a Conservative leaning broadsheet, funded by advertising (probably not) and donations rock the MSM in the same way that Fox has rocked the alphabet TV channels.”

You have the Washington Times that seems to be doing ok. I am not sure if it is making money.

All the old media is failing. Talk radio and the Internet are gaining. Fox has gained ground, but has moved to the left. Conservatives are winning when the truth gets out, but the left still reaches more people with lies. They own the Universities.

[CyberAnt]

I would be happy for only one reason - I used to be in Dist 51, and then they gerrymandered the districts so I was in a tiny little district, 53.

This meant I went from being represented by a repub, Duncan Hunter, and I was switched over to a dem, Susan Davis (ugh).

To this day, Duncan Hunter will respond to my inquiries. Even though I’m quite sure he knows I’m no longer in his district.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[vette6387]

“These so-called “independent” commissions are a joke, in my experience. All they do is provide cover for Democrats, because the media is in the tank for progressives.”

I started the “process” to become a member of California’s “Commission,” but I soon found that like all things political, the “vetting process” was a sham, so I bailed. It was like trying to get yourself on a jury if you have an original thought. My bet is that somewhere there was a list of “pre-approved” commissioners.