"... the first time this redistricting cycle that a Democratic-controlled legislature’s map has been rejected in court. The ruling by Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County found that the map drawn by Democrats had 'constitutional failings' and ignored requirements of focusing on 'compactness' and keeping similar communities together. 'All of the testimony in this case supports the notions that the voice of Republican voters was diluted and their right to vote and be heard with the efficacy of a Democratic voter was diminished,' Judge Battaglia wrote in her opinion.... The congressional map drawn by Democrats would have most likely guaranteed them at least seven of Maryland’s eight House seats, or 87 percent of the state’s seats. President Biden carried the state with 65 percent of the vote in 2020.... Judge Battaglia... was appointed by former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat.... She also served as chief of staff to former Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, a Democrat.... Doug Mayer, a spokesman for [Fair Maps Maryland, a Republican-aligned group, said,] 'Judge Battaglia’s ruling confirms what we have all known for years — Maryland is ground zero for gerrymandering, our districts and political reality reek of it....' The decision was also praised by outside groups that have sought to overhaul the country’s redistricting process."
Posts
35 comments:
Now do Illinois.
I live in MD7. Whenever Dems whine about those evil gerrymandering Republicans, I just laugh.
Why the map of the north shore of Massachusetts?
Ficta said...I live in MD7. Whenever Dems whine about those evil gerrymandering Republicans, I just laugh.
Nobody cares about the gerrymandering their own side does. Never have, never will. “Republican gerrymandering” is just an attack line.
We should adopt a new system for drawing districts called merrygandering. This would involve only creating districts that look like geese. Geese and other fowl have relatively large abdomens (the prime electorate) with 3 longer appendages (neck/head, and two feet) that would allow for the creativity in getting the results and aspirations politicians wanted from the proposed district. The fact that all districts would be shaped like Geese would limit the insanity you see while creating an interlocking pattern of Geese. Some districts would be fat Geese, others thinner, while some would have shorter duck-like necks yet others more swan-like, a diverse interlocking flock of districts.
We should give merrygandering a try. I propose that it would make us all mu h happier.
You have a choice- gerrymandering by the legislatures, or gerrymandering by the judiciary. There is no place in between.
"Why the map of the north shore of Massachusetts?"
I presume basic familiarity with American history. I'm not here to sledgehammer.
Realize that Maryland is a Democrat totalitarian one-party state.
Even allowing one Republican to have a seat in Congress or the state general assembly is intolerable.
Elbridge Gerry. You don't see too many Elbridge's around these days.
Wait...I thought a court has just thrown out a democratic redistribution plan in Wisconsin?
I will note that it is possible to make silly looking districts that make sense. If the state had a river valley with mountains around it, a long, thin, winding district encompassing that area could make sense as the people in the valley would have much more in common being isolated and all. That's not usually what happens. I am not sure that ever happens, honestly.
There's really no way to eliminate gerrymandering with human beings in charge or it. (And that also includes computer generated districts as they are only as good as their programming.) We have already seen the results of legislatures, courts, and "non-partisan" commissions, and there is not much of a difference. If you really want to address the matter in some sort of "objective" way, you can set rules that have to be followed and let the people in charge do whatever they want as long as they follow the rules. But what's the fun in that?
Now do Colorado.
We had a mixed xommitte to re-draw - headed by someone who accidentally revealed he liked Trump. *mind crime!* Guards - seize him! *INSURRECTIONIST*!
You are not allowed to be Pro Trump is Soviet (D) America.
Huh?
Yancey Ward said...
You have a choice- gerrymandering by the legislatures, or gerrymandering by the judiciary. There is no place in between.
Not so fast.
Governors/Executive are now in on it too. "Independent" commissions, too. Whatever it takes to strip away the Constitutional powers of republican legislatures.
"the first time this redistricting cycle that a Democratic-controlled legislature’s map has been rejected in court"
And the last? Everybody knows gerrymandering is a GOP ploy. Dems should get themselves a better judge.
Bender said...
Realize that Maryland is a Democrat totalitarian one-party state.
Even allowing one Republican to have a seat in Congress or the state general assembly is intolerable.
i disconcur! They NEED one (and Only One) Republican seat; so they can Blame All Ills on that seat
This is absurd.
Republicans cynically Gerrymander districts in order to illegitimately seize power.
Democrats never Gerrymander. Democrats carefully craft district boundaries so as to allow Historically Marginalized Populations to finally have a Voice in Our Democracy.
The problem in Maryland s that the Democratic party is doing exactly what they've attacked Republicans for in prior redistricting spats: Consciously disenfranchising a group through non-compact, non-contiguous goofy districts. Some years ago Maryland gerrymandered itself from a 6-2 congressional majority to a 7-1 majority by merging central Maryland (politically left of center) with western Maryland (conservative). Their recent effort stretched districts in all kind of crazy ways to try for 8-0.
How could any southern state be held to account for say, splitting Atlanta to divide the Black vote, with mirror image practices in Maryland that consciously disenfranchise poor White voters who rarely had much voice in a wealthy multiracial state?
Hoisted on their own petard, Democrats were.
Pigs get fat; Hogs get slaughtered. And both teams play the gerrymander game.
For a long time California reapportionment was done by the state legislature. Then, when it got too bad, and "independent commission" was established. Same old same old. Doesn't matter who draws the lines, you get results tailored to the dominant party. Devin Nunes bailed out of Congress recently. California lost one Congressional seat in the 2020 census. Guess whose district would be eliminated. You don't need to be a weatherman to see which way the electoral winds are blowing.
They've managed to outlaw Republicans in California and New York over a couple of gerrymandering cycles. It happened out of the spotlight so no one noticed it until the job was complete. Democrats don't seem to get as much push back on their maneuverings as do Republicans. This Maryland decision seems a rarity.
My congressional district extends from NE Seattle, and then all the way across town to Vashon Island in the SW.
Vashon Island.....yup.....Birkenstocks, wool socks, and patchouli oil.
is it required that there be districts? why not at large for all the seats?
a mêlée is more fun !
also on the point of compact districts -
- should not ad-judicatary jiggery-pokery require professional topologist; graph-theory etc. be involved?
a skeptical voter said...
Doesn't matter who draws the lines, you get results tailored to the dominant party.
everybody (well, lots of people) talk about "how fair" iowa's redistricting is
(we have an independent committee), but what they fail to mention is:
Iowa hasn't had a "dominant party" for as long as i've been voting.
Sure, the democrats used to run the show; and now, the republicans do..
But it's Always divided about 40%-40%, with 20% (or more) independents)
So, each side has to respect the other; or they'll lose the independents
There's several Million more republicans in california than in iowa, but more than 50% of the state is democrat, so No One Else gets a say
The irony of democratic gerrymander by Democrats. What's next, Mengele mandates, diversity [dogma], redistributive per chance retributive change, social justice without borders, human rites?
DEMOCRATS: Suppressing Votes Since 1789 and Proud of It
Both sides do it but only one side wants to put a stop to it.
DEMOCRATS: Suppressing Votes Since 1789 and Proud of It
and creators of phantom ballots for just as long.
Gahrie said...
Wait...I thought a court has just thrown out a democratic redistribution plan in Wisconsin?
It wasn't a plan created by the Legislature, it was a plan imposed on the State by the Sate Supreme Court ofter it was created by the Democrat Governor
MA, another State with a Republican Governor (showing that up to 50% of the population is willing to vote for the right Republican) has 0 GOP members of the House.
Until such time as GOP voters in IL, MD, MA, and NY are protected from Dem gerrymanders, there is NO legitimate protection for Democrat voters from GOP gerrymanders.
Not even if those Dem voters have a dark skin color
A stubborn progression in a gendermander to gerrymander ouroboros. One step forward... Hee haw.
Wait...I thought a court has just thrown out a democratic redistribution plan in Wisconsin?
It wasn't a plan created by the Legislature, it was a plan imposed on the State by the Sate Supreme Court ofter it was created by the Democrat Governor
OK, the article did specify legislative. The Wisconsin case should have been mentioned however.
>>I presume basic familiarity with American history. I'm not here to sledgehammer.
Umm, I think you just did Or maybe some sort of skewering (or disemboweling!) is the more appropriate metaphor. Not that it was unjustified.
Of course, I'm sure we all know that old Elbridge's name was pronounced with a hard G, so we ought to be talking about Gary-mandering.
--gpm
>>MA, another State with a Republican Governor (showing that up to 50% of the population is willing to vote for the right Republican) has 0 GOP members of the House.
Hey, we used to have one, out in the Berkshires IIRC. But then we lost a seat, so somebody had to go . . .
And we even had a black (we didn't capitalize that term back in the day) Republican senator when I first became a Massachusetts voter in the 70s, along with Republican Frank Sargent as governor before he was beaten by Mike Dukakis, in Frank's view, because of "the price of hamburg [sic]." And Mike's "lead pipe cinch" vow that there would be no increase in taxes; you can guess where that one went.
In any case, the Republican governor thing is mostly just a reflection of our perversity. Plus, a forlorn hope of a prayer of some check on the corrupt democrats in the Legislature. Apart from my homie (Deval Patrick was about two years younger than me [I know, I know, that should be "I"] and grew up about four miles away on the South Side of Chicago before coming out here to go to school, just a couple of years before I did the same), we've pretty much had Republican governors (of a sort) for the last few decades.
Apart from a few state level offices, most of the major races in my precinct are uncontested. I refuse on principle to vote for anyone running unopposed. But occasionally there's some random person from JP (Jamaica Plain) running as an independent lesbian communist or the like who can always count on my vote.
A couple of years ago there was a woman running for Suffolk County Register of Deeds (why such offices are elective, I don't know, but there are often a number of candidates for those cushy offices) who said she was running so she could reduce homelessness. When I commented on the UHUB site that her statement was idiotic because the role of the Register of Deeds has no connection with anything to do with homelessness, I got two hostile responses. One expressed the view that I probably wasn't even a Boston voter, even though I had in fact been a regular Boston voter for more than forty years at that point. The other suggested that I would surely never vote for a woman, even though I have done so on many occasions.
Anyway, poor, poor, pitiful me: After being saddled with young Joe the braindead Kennedy as my Congress critter for at least a decade or so, I am currently represented by a member of the Squad, who was my city council rep before then. She replaced Mike Caputo, who at least had some clue about what is going on.
OK, I can't resist this story. When young Joe was first running for Congress, he and his entourage came over to me while I was sunning and reading on the Esplanade one afternoon. When I said it was unlikely he would get my vote, he said something to the effect that he hoped he could "earn" my vote. I have kicked myself ever since for not coming up with the obvious response: that it would be the first time in his life that he had ever earned anything.
--gpm
The non-salamander towns were a Federalist stronghold. The salamander (or more like dragon) towns were places Jeffersonians thought they could win.
Now Game of Thrones and Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter have me thinking how much more fun American history would be if it had real dragons in it. What if John Quincy Adams told us not to go abroad looking for monsters to destroy because we had real monsters to fight here at home?
Readering said...
Both sides do it but only one side wants to put a stop to it.
Bullshit
The ONLY reason Democrats are claiming to be against gerrymandering now is because Obama's 2010 wipeout meant the GOP got control of a lot more States where it could do the gerrymandering.
It's like you assholes pretending you're now against "judges ruling from the bench", because you believe that teh judges won't rule your way
Post a Comment