Skip to main content

View Diary: What if legislators didn't have to draw majority-minority districts? Democrats would lose big (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One More Reason to Elect another Democratic Prez.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..and turn the Supreme Court.  Then set the lawyers loose on building a case for eliminating partisan redistricting altogether.  In California, despite dem assertions that going non-partisan would help repubs, turns out that although dem incumbents were hurt, overall it was good for us.  Worked fine in AZ, too.  North Carolina may be the worst and Dems have themselves to blame.  They took the Governor out of the equation.  So in 2011 a dem Governor had no voice.  So it won't matter if there is another dem governor in 2021, the locked in repugs will still be there and will just redistrict as they see fit.  The 2010 election will still be affecting NC in 2040 or 2050 no matter how blue the state might get.  All this means to me is that a favorable SCOTUS ought to be able to find reason to overturn redistricting.  SCOTUS has cured other injustices in this area like "one man one vote", after all.

    •  Actually Dems didn't take the gov out (0+ / 0-)

      they just never put the gov in. North Carolina had no gubernatorial veto from statehood until 1997, when the Republican state house and Democratic state senate changed the state constitution in what I'm assuming might have been some sort of compromise involving other matters. But yes I think we're screwed for a very long time in North Carolina, at the very least until 2032 barring some massive Dem wave happening in 2020 and even then a majority in either chamber is very tough. Taking the US Supreme Court would be a great way to try to end it. Justices Stevens was pretty ready to rule against partisan redistricting the last time a major case came before them when he was on the court.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site