Republican file federal lawsuit for more minority districts in California.

[DCal430]

This too funny, in California republicans have filed a VRA lawsuit challenging the new congressional districts as being in violation of the VRA by diluting minority votes. Yes Republicans are pushing for more black and latino districts in California.

They also tried to challenge the state senate districts in state court but loss.

There is a catch though in order to increase those groups districts it would DECREASE democrat districts, making more republican districts.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/11/federal-awsuit-filed-against-california-congressional-maps.html

 

[cybrsage]

So are you for or against more minority districts? I am not sure from your post.

 

[DCal430]

So are you for or against more minority districts? I am not sure from your post.

I am against more republican seats.

 

[matt0611]

So are you for or against more minority districts? I am not sure from your post.

If more minority districts increased democrat districts I'm sure he would be. But since they increase republican districts he's probably having a hard time computing.

 

[cybrsage]

I am against more republican seats.

That did not answer the question. I will restate it.

Are you for or against more minority districts?

 

[marincounty]

Republicans just got done pushing through an initiative to have re-districting done by a commission made up of a 50/50 mix of Republicans and Democrats. Now they don't like what the results are? I don't get it.

 

[monovillage]

Republicans just got done pushing through an initiative to have re-districting done by a commission made up of a 50/50 mix of Republicans and Democrats. Now they don't like what the results are? I don't get it.

Why would you believe it's a 50-50 mix of Republicans and Democrats? It's not.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/commission.html

 

[DCal430]

Republicans just got done pushing through an initiative to have re-districting done by a commission made up of a 50/50 mix of Republicans and Democrats. Now they don't like what the results are? I don't get it.

Because it has back fired, the commissions maps give democrats a good chance at 2/3s majority in the California legislation. The democrats who were against the commission at first are now very pleased with the results, the republicans are mad.

 

[Craig234]

A lot of these Republican policymakers are lacking in principle, pursuing nothing but power to serve their agenda for the rich, IMO.

 

[monovillage]

A lot of those Democrat policymakers are lacking in principle, pursuing nothing but power and money so they become one of the rich, IMHO.

 

[ilkhan]

That did not answer the question. I will restate it.

Are you for or against more minority districts?

As another voice, I'm for any districts in which their representative actually represents the overwhelming majority of their constituents. 51%/49% (of any factor) doesn't qualify, as that disenfranchises nearly half the people.

 

[WelshBloke]

Forgive my ignorance here but what is an official minority district and what does it entail?

 

[Thump553]

It's all about gaining/retaining a political edge. Minority interests is only a pretense. California is one of a very, very small minority of states that tried to take redistricting out of the politicians hands and put it in a bipartisan, nonpolitical committee. The GOP is now having major buyer's remorse.

I've said it before and will say it again-nonpolitical district determination should be a basic right of voters under the federal Constitution and gerrymandering (to any extent) should be presumed unconstitutional.

 

[Jhhnn]

So are you for or against more minority districts? I am not sure from your post.

Loaded question.

Packing minorities into their own districts doesn't increase their overall political clout at all, nor does cracking them into districts where they are an extreme minority, either.

Combining the two methods into an overall plan can easily create disproportional representation across both party and ethnic lines.

 

[cybrsage]

Loaded question.

Packing minorities into their own districts doesn't increase their overall political clout at all, nor does cracking them into districts where they are an extreme minority, either.

Yes it does. If we ensured that all majority black districts were carved in such a way as to make blacks a minority, the needs of the black community would be silenced.

 

[cybrsage]

As another voice, I'm for any districts in which their representative actually represents the overwhelming majority of their constituents. 51%/49% (of any factor) doesn't qualify, as that disenfranchises nearly half the people.

I agree with you, but accept that it is not possible to make all districts like this.

 

[cybrsage]

Forgive my ignorance here but what is an official minority district and what does it entail?

Basically, it is like this:

Minorities tend to all live close to each other (basic human need to associate with others that you have much in common with). However, even in a group, they make up a small percentage of any area. Minorities have some needs that others do not have, such as special language classes to help them better integrate into society at large, special health issues, etc.

If we make voting districts into large squares, the minorities are swallowed up by the majority population and their special needs are never taken into account or solved. If we make odd shaped districts, we can combine two or more minority areas together into one district and allow them to have representation in government.

That disctrict, cobbled together in an odd way, would be a minority district.

 

[monovillage]

It now has to do with the "Voting Rights Act", especially the more recent Amendments to it.

"Gerrymandering

Some judges and proponents of racially drawn congressional districts have interpreted Section 5 of the Act as requiring racial gerrymandering in order to ensure minority representation.[32][33] The United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), overturned a 1992 Congressional redistricting plan which had created minority majority districts in Georgia as unconstitutional gerrymander. In Bush v. Vera, the Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, rejected Texas's contention that Section 5 required racially-gerrymandered districts."

So in California the object of the Commission is to carefully draw the lines so there's a large Democrat majority to win in each, but not so much that they waste too many votes so they can achieve the 2/3 majority in the legislature. It's a pretty difficult task for them, but they're trying.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes it does. If we ensured that all majority black districts were carved in such a way as to make blacks a minority, the needs of the black community would be silenced.

And if we pack most into a very few districts, parcel out the others into districts where their concerns are of no concern, They'll be completely outvoted & ignored at the legislative level.

Packing and cracking are the functional halves of any sort of gerrymander- they're used in a complimentary way, not an oppositional one.

I support the idea of competitive districts, not ones that are safe for either party or any ethnicity. Some safe districts are inevitable, however, given demographics.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is why they should repeal the 15th Amendment and all the Uncivil Priveleges legislation. Voting is not a right, it's a privelege. If there were no government, you would retain all your rights without voting.

Yes, I know I misspelled.

 

[cybrsage]

And if we pack most into a very few districts, parcel out the others into districts where their concerns are of no concern, They'll be completely outvoted & ignored at the legislative level.

I support the idea of competitive districts, not ones that are safe for either party or any ethnicity. Some safe districts are inevitable, however, given demographics.

At least their voice would be heard. A better chance than without special districting.

I am not sure about competative districts...people tend to self segregate, which will cause a 55-45 split district to slowly shift to 70-30 split all on its own.

 

[DCal430]

It now has to do with the "Voting Rights Act", especially the more recent Amendments to it.

"Gerrymandering

Some judges and proponents of racially drawn congressional districts have interpreted Section 5 of the Act as requiring racial gerrymandering in order to ensure minority representation.[32][33] The United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), overturned a 1992 Congressional redistricting plan which had created minority majority districts in Georgia as unconstitutional gerrymander. In Bush v. Vera, the Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, rejected Texas's contention that Section 5 required racially-gerrymandered districts."

So in California the object of the Commission is to carefully draw the lines so there's a large Democrat majority to win in each, but not so much that they waste too many votes so they can achieve the 2/3 majority in the legislature. It's a pretty difficult task for them, but they're trying.

The commision voting power was split equally among democrats, republicans, and independents. They were non-partisan. Their goal wasn't to maximum democrat leaning districts.

 

[monovillage]

The commision voting power was split equally among democrats, republicans, and independents. They were non-partisan. Their goal wasn't to maximum democrat leaning districts.

No, it was divided up between Democrats and Republicans and a declined -to -state-party and an unnamed party. They then chose the rest of the commission. Non-partisan? Is that a joke? You are kidding about that right?

 

[cybrsage]

It is filled with people of specific political parties who are also non-partisan and will not let their political leanings affect their views on gaining or losing power for their specific political parties.

Oh, and I found the exact makeup of the super thermite Bush had the special forces plant in the World Trade Tower at the end of August, 2001.

 

[Craig234]

Forgive my ignorance here but what is an official minority district and what does it entail?

Here's how gerrymandering works. Let's say party 1 has the majority and gets to determine the districts.

They want as large a margin in the legislature as possible.

Now, if they put too many party 1 people in a district, they're wasted. A district that votes 80% for their guy is the same one vote as the district that votes 60% for him.

If they put too few party 1 people, they run the risk of losing the election.

On the other hand, they WANT to waste the non-party 1 vote - so they want to put as many of those people in the district as possible. If they could get 100% of a district to have party 2 people, then they'd be getting party to have no benefit from the voters above the 51% needed to win the election.

So instead of, say, a 20-16 legislature of balanced districts, they might squeeze those 16 districts into 12 and get a 24-12 balance.

One thing though, the more they concentrate party 2 in a district, the more the winner is likely to be not 'in the middle' appealing to 'both sides'.

A 90% 'party 2 district' probably doesn't elect the same type of person as a 55% 'party 2 district'.

That's pretty much all there is to it. There's no such thing as an 'official minority district', but there can be a district with as many minority voters put in it as possible.