News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Hey - maybe this shouldn't be legal at all? Why is neither party proposing an amendment outlawing this?
The GOP will never support clean cut voting laws, they have to manipulate the votes to win anything they haven't had the numbers to win an election since Nixon. That's the reason our voting laws are convoluted in the first place.
Trump would have won a straight up popular vote for this term.
There isnt any need for a constituonal amendment to stop gerrymandering. A simple act of Congress will do it
And, to be absolutely clear, nothing less than an act of Congress will stop it nationwide. And any anti-gerrymandering measure that isn't nationwide is an endorsement of partisan gerrymandering in red states.
It took two constitutional amendments to make states allow black people and women to vote. There's another banning poll taxes and the like.
https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights
Most US laws on voting rely on those amendments for support. That's why it's only illegal to gerrymander if it disenfranchises minorities.
There is nothing in the constitution directly disallowing extreme racial gerrymanders. Those are unlawful not because they're unconditional, but because they're prohibited by the voting rights act.
Congress could very well have passed simple laws banning racial and gender disenfranchisement in federal elections. The amendments were necessary to impose a rule on sub-federal elections and to keep a mere majority from taking the franchise away.
The US Constituon is neither very long nor hard to read, and it has oodles of text that Congress could invoke to ban the gerrymandering of congressional districts:
US Constitution article 1 section 4:
Article 4, section 4:
14th amendment section 2:
Which is backed by the US constitution and in particular the 14th amendment. The "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment in particular is frequently cited in challenges to racial gerrymandering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Johnson
SCOTUS rulings are not the constitution. While the country operated on the idea that a supreme court ruling was final law for a few decades, the Roberts court forever destroyed the idea of binding precedent when they discarded Roe v Wade.
Racial gerrymandering is now effectively constitutional so long as there's a fig leaf of partisanship. While SCOTUS could plausibly jump the other way in the future, Congress is literally the primary body of the US federal government, and has all the power they want to ban gerrymandering in house districts and plausibly even local jurisdictions.
Which is why... I'm saying... We need a constitutional amendment... to make it illegal outright to gerrymander.
I don't mean to argue that an amendment wouldn't work, or be the correct next-step. We just don't need to wait for one, just like we didnt need one to pass a law making an officiated gay marriage legit in every state no matter what local laws say.
It's like SCOTUS reform. Sure, we should pass an amendment and enshrine the reform into a hard-to-revert form, but that shouldn't stop us from defining good behavior and kicking Scalia to the curb.
I don't see how an act of Congress could do it for the same legal reasons Trump can't "nationalize" elections, and the same reason I believe the supreme Court upheld this.
The States have the right to organize how votes are performed, but no one in the U.S. has a right to vote in reality. They have a right to not be discriminated against during voting.
Let's say Florida decided they won't have a popular vote for president and the currently elected representatives vote on the electors.
Every person in Florida just lost their right to vote, but they did not discriminate in doing so, and it could be legal. The residents would have to be pissed at their State government for allowing such a vote to pass.... But federally, it could be constitutional.
Gerrymander remapping has been deemed unconstitutional in other states specifically because they were trying to manipulate representation of certain races to change the results.
Amendments need 3/4 of the states to ratify. And good luck getting enough of the partisan controlled State governments to agree to that
So, this CA law is removing the anti-gerrymandering legislation that CA Democrats got enacted. The Democrats proposed a state-wide initiative to stop gerrymandering. It won, and we were all happy. Now we have to remove that legislation because Republicans in other states are going the other direction.
If you think getting 20 Republican governors to sign up for a Constitutional amendment that will destroy the chances of a Republican majority US House is a doable do, then I have a bridge to sell you. The thing is, even proposing it would cost the taxpayers million in all the logistical crap that would happen to have a vote for something guaranteed to fail.
That something isn't likely to pass doesn't mean you don't try. There should be, and needs to be, a constant push. It's so obviously corrupt to allow gerrymandering.
The solution is not more, it's none.
Proposals have been made.
H.R.7910 - FAIR MAPS Act
S.3750 - Redistricting Reform Act of 2024
But the majority party rarely sees an incentive to change the rules they won under. And a minority party never has the votes to overturn a majority-written set of maps.
Laws are useless without consequences.
Because it already exists. This is a temporary law.
No, it doesn't. If it did then this law would be unconstitutional. You can't "temporarily" violate the Constitution.
It’s a state law. The state decides how they want to represent their constituents. This state law is temporary.