F*ck off Arnie, you're out of your element!
-
So I went and looked it up
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; ....
If I'm interpreting this correctly, representatives are proportioned among states based on population. But there is no provision specifying that within a state the election must be based on electoral districts.
And according to Wikipedia
States entitled to more than one representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967 pursuant to the act titled An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting.[21] Before that law, general ticket representation was used by some states.
There doesn't seem to be any constitutional requirements for electoral districts. It's regulated by a law but not constitution, which should make it easier to modify.
They're saying the constitution explicitly delegates this power to the states, meaning in order to enact something in this area nationally, it would require a constitutional amendment
-
So I went and looked it up
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; ....
If I'm interpreting this correctly, representatives are proportioned among states based on population. But there is no provision specifying that within a state the election must be based on electoral districts.
And according to Wikipedia
States entitled to more than one representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967 pursuant to the act titled An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting.[21] Before that law, general ticket representation was used by some states.
There doesn't seem to be any constitutional requirements for electoral districts. It's regulated by a law but not constitution, which should make it easier to modify.
It's regulated per state. What Texas is doing, while highly unethical and, frankly, fraudulent, is entirely legal and up to the Texas state legislature to decide. Only the federal government may supersede it and only with a change to the constitution which prescribes this power to the states. So, for the Texas legislature, yes it's easier to modify the law. To change it without them, it is absolutely not easier.
-
So I went and looked it up
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; ....
If I'm interpreting this correctly, representatives are proportioned among states based on population. But there is no provision specifying that within a state the election must be based on electoral districts.
And according to Wikipedia
States entitled to more than one representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967 pursuant to the act titled An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting.[21] Before that law, general ticket representation was used by some states.
There doesn't seem to be any constitutional requirements for electoral districts. It's regulated by a law but not constitution, which should make it easier to modify.
It wouldn't mean much as long as the senate still exists.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The way this meme was designed feels like a violation of the geneva convention.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I haven't seen any news about Arnold commenting on this situation, can you share?
That said, I'm a socialist, I've been campaigning against gerrymandering in my state since 2016, and I think blue states getting rid of their independent redistricting commissions (if they have them) is a really bad idea.
Yes, the situation is terrible, and I'm glad the Texas Dems fled to prevent quorum. I think extreme measures are called for. I also think they should be extreme measures that increase democratic rule, not reduce it.
Edit: I find this article about Schwarzenegger's comments, seems pretty benign: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arnold-schwarzenegger-weighs-ramping-anti-gerrymandering-efforts/story?id=124444402
-
I haven't seen any news about Arnold commenting on this situation, can you share?
That said, I'm a socialist, I've been campaigning against gerrymandering in my state since 2016, and I think blue states getting rid of their independent redistricting commissions (if they have them) is a really bad idea.
Yes, the situation is terrible, and I'm glad the Texas Dems fled to prevent quorum. I think extreme measures are called for. I also think they should be extreme measures that increase democratic rule, not reduce it.
Edit: I find this article about Schwarzenegger's comments, seems pretty benign: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arnold-schwarzenegger-weighs-ramping-anti-gerrymandering-efforts/story?id=124444402
Preventing Republicans from keeping control of congress is likely essential to preserving whatever is left of democracy in the US. If it's not already too late.
Further gerrymandering in blue states could be walked back. Maybe it never will be. But the longer Republicans are in control, the more damage they'll do to democracy.
-
Preventing Republicans from keeping control of congress is likely essential to preserving whatever is left of democracy in the US. If it's not already too late.
Further gerrymandering in blue states could be walked back. Maybe it never will be. But the longer Republicans are in control, the more damage they'll do to democracy.
The people we send to Congress have to answer to voters. We've seen how little resistance elites and organizations have put up, even ones ostensibly on our side.
"Our" representatives who come from gerrymandered districts will owe their seat to party leaders, not the voters. So they will cater to those leaders, not voters.
Would they take some actions which counter Trump? Yes. Will they take drastic actions to actually prevent further fascist advances? Probably not. Because most Democratic leaders are out of touch and answer to big donors. They're not going to pack the supreme court, they're not going to make DC a state, etc.
I'm a little sympathetic to Newsom's talk about a referendum vote on having gerrymandered districts only for five years. But I think if he moves ahead with that it should be tied explicitly to what Texas does. If Texas passes their crooked map then the California map is revised too, otherwise nothing happens.
-
Isn't the redistricting going to happen no matter what? I haven't read any news about Arnie's involvement but if he's supervising, that's a good thing no?
Do you mean the redistricting in Texas? That's why the Dem reps left the state, because they know they would lose the vote, but if they deny "quorum" (aka that there's enough people to hold a session of the legislature) then a vote can't be held.
This same thing actually happened in Texas back in 2003, but the Dems caved that time. Article: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/texas-redistricting-quorum-flight-time-warp
-
It's regulated per state. What Texas is doing, while highly unethical and, frankly, fraudulent, is entirely legal and up to the Texas state legislature to decide. Only the federal government may supersede it and only with a change to the constitution which prescribes this power to the states. So, for the Texas legislature, yes it's easier to modify the law. To change it without them, it is absolutely not easier.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well, kinda- gerrymandering itself was illegal until the current Supreme Court (well, the GOP part) decided to gut election laws for Trump
-
Well, kinda- gerrymandering itself was illegal until the current Supreme Court (well, the GOP part) decided to gut election laws for Trump
wrote last edited by [email protected]No it wasn't. Gerrymandering that demonstrably targeted racial or other protected demographics or otherwise broke the voting rights act was illegal. But gerrymandering as a concept has never been illegal in the US. State and federal courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled several times that there is no constitutional law against it, nor a mechanism to objectively identify it, nor a means to remedy it. If it violates those other laws in the process, it gets rejected and kicked back to be fixed. But if not, there is nothing illegal about it under current law, despite it being blatant vote manipulation. What SCOTUS has rolled back is certain oversight for the voters right act and have given legislatures the out to claim that blatant racial disenfranchisement is political, not racial.
Edit: There might be individual state laws or constitutions making gerrymandering illegal or otherwise removing the districting power from the legislature. I'm not aware of any, specifically, but I wouldn't be shocked if there were. I'm only speaking on a federal level.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Schwarzenegger hasn't been the governor of California since 2011. What are you expecting him to do?
-
Do you mean the redistricting in Texas? That's why the Dem reps left the state, because they know they would lose the vote, but if they deny "quorum" (aka that there's enough people to hold a session of the legislature) then a vote can't be held.
This same thing actually happened in Texas back in 2003, but the Dems caved that time. Article: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/texas-redistricting-quorum-flight-time-warp
Oh so that's why they left? I was so confused about that situation because either PBS never said why or I missed it. Nor did any discussions I read about it.
No wonder they want the fucking FBI on them.
