Comments on: TEXAS DEMOCRATS LOSE IN COURT http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/texas_democrats_lose_in_court/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:04:01 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Chris Lawrence http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/texas_democrats_lose_in_court/comment-page-1/#comment-5871 Chris Lawrence Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3233#comment-5871 I'm all for anything that either (a) gets the Supreme Court to finally have the guts to declare that blatant partisan gerrymandering is as unconstitutional on equal protection grounds as blatant racial gerrymandering or (b) makes Congress repeal the single-member district requirement for House districts (which makes these absurd gerrymanders possible in the first place). I'm all for anything that either (a) gets the Supreme Court to finally have the guts to declare that blatant partisan gerrymandering is as unconstitutional on equal protection grounds as blatant racial gerrymandering or (b) makes Congress repeal the single-member district requirement for House districts (which makes these absurd gerrymanders possible in the first place).

]]> By: JohnC http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/texas_democrats_lose_in_court/comment-page-1/#comment-5872 JohnC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3233#comment-5872 I think (a) is impossible, unless politics as we know it somehow miraculously disapears. Your (b) intrigued me, though. So I looked that up on the web, and at first blush sounds like a very good idea. I had no idea about any of the history of this topic, nor the thinking on alternatives to solving this ugly problem. Many thanks. I think (a) is impossible, unless politics as we know it somehow miraculously disapears.

Your (b) intrigued me, though. So I looked that up on the web, and at first blush sounds like a very good idea. I had no idea about any of the history of this topic, nor the thinking on alternatives to solving this ugly problem.

Many thanks.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/texas_democrats_lose_in_court/comment-page-1/#comment-5873 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3233#comment-5873 Chris, Interesting. The Constitution certainly grants a lot of latitude in this area. Art. I., Sec. 4 prescribes only that,"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." But I'm not sure what you'd have instead of single member districts? Going to any at-large method of voting would tend to dilute the voting power of minorities and the rural areas. You could well have several representatives from the state's dominant metro area getting elected. And proportional representation has its own nightmares. Chris,

Interesting. The Constitution certainly grants a lot of latitude in this area. Art. I., Sec. 4 prescribes only that,"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

But I'm not sure what you'd have instead of single member districts? Going to any at-large method of voting would tend to dilute the voting power of minorities and the rural areas. You could well have several representatives from the state's dominant metro area getting elected. And proportional representation has its own nightmares.

]]> By: Steven http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/texas_democrats_lose_in_court/comment-page-1/#comment-5874 Steven Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3233#comment-5874 The only reason I don't have a large problem with the re-districting at this juncture, is because the current plan was court-ordered, rather than legislatively decided. It seems reasonable that the legislature should have the right to revisit the issue after the stalemate in the prior session. The only reason I don't have a large problem with the re-districting at this juncture, is because the current plan was court-ordered, rather than legislatively decided. It seems reasonable that the legislature should have the right to revisit the issue after the stalemate in the prior session.

]]> By: Chris Lawrence http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/texas_democrats_lose_in_court/comment-page-1/#comment-5875 Chris Lawrence Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3233#comment-5875 I don't think pure PR would be the right approach; something like Germany's top-up PR would be sufficient (with 1/2 or more of the seats being single-member, the rest allocated by PR with a correction for the disproportionality of the SMD results). If you're scared of the Greenies or the Libertarians getting seats, make the threshold 20% or so. It might not eliminate all gerrymanders (I could still see racial or ethnic ones happening), but I think it would undermine the sort of partisan gerrymanders that the big states are notorious for, and I suspect we'd see a lot fewer monolithic state delegations like Massachussetts'. --- I don't think pure PR would be the right approach; something like Germany's top-up PR would be sufficient (with 1/2 or more of the seats being single-member, the rest allocated by PR with a correction for the disproportionality of the SMD results). If you're scared of the Greenies or the Libertarians getting seats, make the threshold 20% or so.

It might not eliminate all gerrymanders (I could still see racial or ethnic ones happening), but I think it would undermine the sort of partisan gerrymanders that the big states are notorious for, and I suspect we'd see a lot fewer monolithic state delegations like Massachussetts'.

---

]]>