Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sure it can (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of course it also cannot. Depends.

    You slough off the Nebraska/Maine question but it seems to me that those two states are clearly not equal in how they district.

    All of the blue votes in Nebraska are shoe-horned into one CD for example. While it's also true that the overall numbers favor the red votes, it still is set-up in a way to benefit one side.

    I doubt that the Supreme's would find either state's scheme unconstitutional. I doubt they'd even grant cert.

    Don't get me wrong, i think the scheme is wrong, it should be fought, but legislatively. I think folks use the word unconstitutional a heckuva lot more than is true or necessary.

    The Constitution gives states a lot of room. You make it seem like it's clear-cut unconstitutional, and I think that's going way too isn't.

    •  No, I'm saying I think it is unconstitutional (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And I laid out my argument as to why.  This, in contrast to a lot of people who just assume it's ok, either because of the Article II provision I cited at the very beginning, or "because Maine and Nebraska do it."

      Things aren't that simple, and Democrats should not concede the legality of these schemes without a fight.

      •  well that position (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is intellectually more defensible.  I can't say there's anything wrong with that position, but my personal belief is that it's very likely constitutional, and I don't think opponents would be able to gather the necessary arguments to get cert granted at the Supremes unless the law were written in such a way that it's either facially unfair (highly unlikely), or that affects a group other than political parties (race, sex, etc).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site