Plan B Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:32 pm**

Texas Republicans come up with novel defense for racism; 'we were worse before so now we're not so bad'.

Everytime they hit a new low you think they can't do worse. And every time they do.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... al-defense

Texas Admits to Partisan Gerrymandering as Legal Defense
[ 45 ] August 15, 2013 | Dave Brockington

In an article that I’d have thought I wrote if the byline hadn’t told me otherwise, Allen Clifton at Forward Progressives is suitably amused by the legal strategy of the State of Texas to avoid having the entire state returned to DoJ pre-clearance under the VRA. According to a brief filed last week, Texas is claiming that it discriminates against Democrats, not against any given race. Clifton outlines the hilarity that ensues:

Another part of Texas’ argument seems to be that even if their new voting laws do happen to disenfranchise minorities—it’s really not that big of a deal. Because the events of the 1960′s were much worse.

Let that sink in for a moment.

A state openly admitting that they redrew district maps to purposely split up and weaken the Democratic vote (something we all knew Republicans were doing but had yet to hear admitted publicly), claiming that even if their new voting laws did happen to disenfranchise minorities from voting that it isn’t that big of a big deal because “the 60′s were much worse.”

Basically, “Yes, we’ve been trying to rig elections along partisan lines and even if our new laws might target minorities in a way—at least we’re not doing what they did in the 1960′s.”

I wasn’t sure what to do with this — yes, of course Texas gerrymanders and heaps of Republicans win because of it. So too have some Democratic states. Yes, this will have a marginal effect in 2014 and beyond. This isn’t news to LGM readers. But the brilliance (or desperation) evident in this admission as a means of distracting attention from the larger sin is worthy of note. I understand just enough US Constitutional Law to know when I’m wading into the deep end (and to offer my students at an English university three weeks worth of lectures as an introduction), and this has me curious — cunningly clever or desperately clutching?

Obviously the argument “we might be wrong, but we were way, way wronger in the 1950s and 1960s” shouldn’t fly. However, where race is a protected class, partisanship is not. Can Texas get away with the ‘race as unfortunate collateral damage in our war against the Democratic Party’ argument?

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:12 pm**

And the dems don't do a the same? Of course they do. They just lie or keep quite about the reason for doing it.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:22 pm**

Everytime they hit a new low you think they can't do worse. And every time they do.

What a coincidence rube....

That's precisely the reaction I frequently have when I read a new post of yours....

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:18 pm**

Another trolling excerise in self-deception from our miscreant in Sta. Cruz.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:01 am**

It would be refreshing if respondents actually read the posts.

It would be astonishing if either LJ or Dales ever made any logical sense.

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:36 pm**

It will be a red-letter day when the rube stops posting his ususal nonsensical pablum.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:24 pm**

There is no question about the purpose of "gerrymandering," and no cogent person denies that both political parties do it whenever possible.

It no more "disenfranchises" anyone than does living in California (which only gets two senators).

Using the same logic as the moron who wrote this article, people like hockey because they are racist. Of course, most of those same people like basketball, so what does that tell you?

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:32 am**

Of course gerrymandering disenfranchises people. Its purpose is to ensure that as many elections as possible are predetermined by the way various chunks of the electorate are carved up. How much more disenfranchised can one be than to know that one's vote doesn't matter because the result was preordained? The comparison to the number of senators from California is moronic, because these are elections that are supposed to be based on rep by pop. And just because both sides do it doesn't make it right, and they will keep doing it until people wake up and create a non-partisan process as is the norm in most civilized countries.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:22 pm**

OK.

Every Republican in California is disenfranchised in presidential elections. Their votes DO NOT COUNT! Every Republican in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, etc, etc, etc., is disenfranchised in municipal elections. Their votes DO NOT COUNT!

Gerrymandering merely takes advantage of peoples' stupidity. It groups together swaths of the population who continually and unthinkingly vote the same way in every election, creating voting districts where one candidate (in this case, the Democrat), will win with 99% of the vote.

These are the people you describe as "disenfranchised."

Cool logic.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:47 pm**

dgs49 wrote:Every Republican in California is disenfranchised in presidential elections.

I'll go you one further. Any voter who is not from a potential swing state might as well stay home on election day for all their vote matters to the outcome. But that is a consequence of your moronic method of electing a president, which is grist for another thread.

Every Republican in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, etc, etc, etc., is disenfranchised in municipal elections. Their votes DO NOT COUNT!

Some of those cities have not had a Republican MAYOR in quite a while, but others have, recently, and for considerable stretches of time. I don't think any of those cities has absolutely no Republican elected municipal officials, so your statement is a gross exaggeration.

Gerrymandering merely takes advantage of peoples' stupidity. It groups together swaths of the population who continually and unthinkingly vote the same way in every election, creating voting districts where one candidate (in this case, the Democrat), will win with 99% of the vote.

First, you've described over 90% of the American electorate, including yourself. Second, just what do you propose that people do? So I'm an unquestionably ideological Republican, who sees that Democrats in the state house have redistricted so that either (a) most Republicans are congregated in a small number of districts, or (b) they are divided up among as many districts as possible, meaning that either way, the Democrats are running the table. Your suggestion would be what, that I try to fool them by voting Democrat in the next election? I'll demonstrate my distaste for what they have done by rewarding them with my vote. THAT will definitely show them. People are just supposed to vote for political parties randomly from one election to the next, regardless of what they actually stand for.

Why not simply get rid of the opportunity to gerrymander, by handing it over to some non-partisan group? I repeat, most of the rest of the civilized world has not fallen into tyranny in so doing.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:05 pm**

Actually Gerrymandering lumps approximately 60% percent reliable party vote with approximately 40% reliable opposing party vote that way they get the most possible seats for their party while denying the opposing party access to much of their most reliable voters.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:55 pm**

Why not simply get rid of the opportunity to gerrymander, by handing it over to some non-partisan group?

Or a bi-partisan independent commission made up of respected former politicos from both parties, or even a computer program...

Anything but having it in the hands of the very people most directly affected by the way the districts are drawn....(the state legislators, interested in having their own districts protected and "safe" congressional districts available to move up to)

Gerrymandering has always been a problem, but the level of sophistication that modern analysis tools make available has refined it to the point that it has become extremely corrosive to our form of government and nearly caused the decision making process of the federal government to grind completely to a halt...

This is how bad it's gotten:

The number of ‘turnover’ or ‘split’ districts has hit a low point compared to recent elections at 26: 17 Republicans in the House are in districts carried by Obama and 9 Democrats are in districts carried by Romney.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/5606

Think about those numbers for a moment...

What this means is that out of 435 members of the House of Representatives, only a small hand full on both sides of the aisle have to be more concerned about losing a general election then they do about being knocked off in a low turnout primary by an opponent who makes a successful pitch to the party base. (Those voters who are most likely to be motivated by ideology and single issues, and least likely to support compromise)

What this does of course, is electorally incentiveize ideological intransigence, and dis-incentivize the sort of horse trading compromising that is essential for a government like ours to function...

The gerrymandering process has placed way too much power in the hands of a minority of ideological voters on both sides of the political divide, at the expense of both the vast majority of the citizenry, (poll after poll after poll shows that by wide margins, Republicans, Democrats and Independents all want their elected representatives to work together to get things done) and the ability of the legislative process to work in even a minimally functional way.

This situation must be fixed.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:12 pm**

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:07 pm**

A wise man once said; "your system is fucking loopy."

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:19 pm**

Gob wrote:A wise man once said; "your system is fucking loopy."

No, that was you.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:32 pm**

Crackpot wrote:
Gob wrote:A wise man once said; "your system is fucking loopy."
No, that was you.

Econo:

Well, you know my motto:

"Fair, Balanced, and Unafraid"...

Plan B Forum

But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.

Re: But we were WAY worse back in the 60s.