politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They rejected the map for having districts which are not contiguous, which violates the state constitution. That would be a pretty straightforward issue, if it weren't for the fact that the state constitution also requires districts to follow local civic boundaries, and unfortunately, those boundaries produce areas that are not contiguous.
Theoretically, that means the US Supreme Court should not have a say in this since the decision is one based purely on the state constitution, not any federal issues. It would take a considerable leap of logic for the US Supreme Court to justify intervening in the case.
But what's really frustrating is that this map should be rejected for partisan gerrymandering. It's obvious, it's what we all actually care about, and the republicans have admitted they drew the map specifically to get the biggest possible advantage, which they justify by pointing out that "it's not illegal." Of course, by not illegal, they mean the US Supreme Court has refused to rule that gerrymandering is unconstitutional because it was deemed to be a political question. So, even though it is effectively no different than passing a law that makes votes for one party get counted twice, courts can only intervene to protect the basic functioning of democracy when there is a technicality like this, or if it's specifically along race lines, since that would violate the voting rights act.
Mostly correct. However, race is not only protected by the VRA. Equal Protection applies to multiple protected classes. Theoretically, for example, a gender-based gerrymander would also be illegal - it's just also practically impossible to do. So would religion-based.