Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Tue Jan 9, 2018, 07:06 PM Jan 2018

Court throws out NC Congressional map again

Source: WRAL



Posted 10 minutes ago
Updated 9 minutes ago

By Travis Fain

A panel of three federal judges has ordered the state to redraw its Congressional map again, forbidding North Carolina from holding this year's scheduled U.S. House elections until it does so.

In doing so the court ruled that state legislators, seeking to address a racial gerrymander the court complained about with a previous map, put too much partisan intent into their redraw, unfairly seeking to lock in Republican gains and violating people's right to choose their own representatives.

The court not only ordered the General Assembly to redraw districts, it said it would also appoint a special master to draw maps on a parallel track. With filing slated for February, time is of the essence, the court said.

In the decision, authored by 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Wynn, the court pointed to baldly partisan public statements by GOP mapmakers intent, at the time, on proving to the court and others that they had set aside racial data in redrawing the districts.

Read more: http://www.wral.com/court-throws-out-nc-congressional-map-again/17245449/

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court throws out NC Congressional map again (Original Post) DonViejo Jan 2018 OP
This is why Ole Mitch McConnell leftieNanner Jan 2018 #1
You got that right! BigmanPigman Jan 2018 #2
Luckily (for now) 9 of the 13 Appellate courts are majority Democratic BumRushDaShow Jan 2018 #3
Yah, thank gawd...... a kennedy Jan 2018 #5
Thanks for that info leftieNanner Jan 2018 #6
I think all 13 were either even or majority Democratic NewJeffCT Jan 2018 #16
We have been hearing about the fast-tracks BumRushDaShow Jan 2018 #18
Exactly. Once we flip the Congress, we need to start investigating and impeaching Trump's judges. lagomorph777 Jan 2018 #14
i agree bluestarone Jan 2018 #15
Every Rethug is a criminal. clementine613 Jan 2018 #19
I hope some court (whether state or federal) will throw out PA's too. BumRushDaShow Jan 2018 #4
The book RAT F*cked says it all turbinetree Jan 2018 #7
Yea!!! paleotn Jan 2018 #8
Can we get those same judges to rule in Pennsylvania? FakeNoose Jan 2018 #9
Here's the best graphic I've seen that explains gerrymandering JohnnyRingo Jan 2018 #10
And here's what is happening - packman Jan 2018 #11
If they used the nonpartisan one on the bottom NewJeffCT Jan 2018 #17
K&R Scurrilous Jan 2018 #12
"forbidding...this year's U.S. House elections until it does so" Hortensis Jan 2018 #13

leftieNanner

(15,206 posts)
1. This is why Ole Mitch McConnell
Tue Jan 9, 2018, 07:16 PM
Jan 2018

is trying to pack the courts with right wing judges so that they will rule the way the GOP wants. Just today he was out bitching about the "obstruction" in confirming judges. Really??? I have two words for you Mitch. Merrick. and Garland.

NewJeffCT

(56,829 posts)
16. I think all 13 were either even or majority Democratic
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:53 AM
Jan 2018

when Trump took office. The senate has fast tracked appointing new judges since Trump took office as well.

BumRushDaShow

(130,043 posts)
18. We have been hearing about the fast-tracks
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 11:45 AM
Jan 2018

but if you recall in the news, a bunch were found to be completely unqualified (and withdrew and/or were not blue-slipped or confirmed) and it seems many have been at the lower court level, which probably where most of the vacancies are. Their big prize was at the SCOTUS level with Gorsuch.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
14. Exactly. Once we flip the Congress, we need to start investigating and impeaching Trump's judges.
Wed Jan 10, 2018, 04:32 PM
Jan 2018

I guarantee most of them have substantial criminal history. That's one of his main criteria for selecting them.

BumRushDaShow

(130,043 posts)
4. I hope some court (whether state or federal) will throw out PA's too.
Tue Jan 9, 2018, 07:36 PM
Jan 2018

Some decisions will be happening within the next couple weeks here.

FakeNoose

(32,917 posts)
9. Can we get those same judges to rule in Pennsylvania?
Tue Jan 9, 2018, 10:54 PM
Jan 2018

We've got some seriously gerrymandered districts in PA. The courts are dragging their feet on giving a ruling because they don't want to change the maps before the 2018 election. The GOP will cheat anyway they can. Always assume they're cheating because it's the only way they can win.

Congratulations to the NC Democrats, you've won an important victory!

JohnnyRingo

(18,696 posts)
10. Here's the best graphic I've seen that explains gerrymandering
Tue Jan 9, 2018, 10:57 PM
Jan 2018

This is why congressional districts look like pieces in a bizzaro puzzle. Near me, it explains why solid blue Youngstown is represented by republican snake Bill Johnson.

[img][/img]

NewJeffCT

(56,829 posts)
17. If they used the nonpartisan one on the bottom
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:56 AM
Jan 2018

even if the Republics won all 3 swing districts, it would still be a net pickup of 2 seats for the Democrats. However, if we do get a blue wave, it could be a 5 seat pickup with all 3 swing districts.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
13. "forbidding...this year's U.S. House elections until it does so"
Wed Jan 10, 2018, 01:04 AM
Jan 2018

Great! So often courts only require compliance some time after the next election.

Btw, let's not forget, we have that major SCOTUS decision written but not yet issued on Wisconsin gerrymandering, Gill v. Whitford, and the question of violation of the equal protection clause.

Plus, SCOTUS will also be hearing a second case regarding gerrymandering in Maryland, Benisek v. Lamone: WaPo:

"Kennedy has wondered whether partisan gerrymandering retaliates against voters for their past support of a party’s candidates, which he has said could be a violation of the First Amendment."

The plaintiffs, Republican voters who live in the district, claim the legislature and then-Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, “targeted them for vote dilution because of their past support for Republican candidates for public office, violating the First Amendment retaliation doctrine,” lawyer Michael B. Kimberly wrote in his petition to the court. ...

A three-judge panel ruled against the challengers in August. In a 2-to-1 vote, the panel said the Republican challengers didn’t prove the election results occurred just because of those redistricting changes. ...

“If a court were to find that a state did impose burdens and restrictions on groups or persons by reason of their views, there would likely be a First Amendment violation,” Kennedy wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/2017/12/08/4fde65f4-dc66-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.fdd409da9323

It's actually had to imagine how gerrymandering to disadvantage voters wouldn't impose burdens. We all know it's rampant.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Court throws out NC Congr...