GOP Looks To Redistrict Itself Back Into Power

GOP Looks To Redistrict Itself Back Into Power

www.huffingtonpost.com

For months, a sense of dread has been percolating within Republican circles over potentially massive congressional losses in 2008. Facing the possibility of a more pronounced minority status in the House and more than a couple seats lost in the Senate, the GOP has begun setting its sights on a contingency plan: redistricting.

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010...

(visit the link for the full news article)

...Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

Democracy? Most defiantly not. Rigging the system to favor your party for the sake of being the most powerful political party is an obvious attempt to undermine Democracy or even a Republic.

"The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country," said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. "We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them."

Yet the Republican party is happy to openly admit their strategy for regaining power is by changing the rules to favor them. That any US citizen would take this without being outraged is testament to the impending doom facing this nation. Republican or not what is being proposed is completely contrary to the ideals that this nation was founded and has evolved to uphold.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Both parties do it though and its perfectly legal. It becomes illegal when its done between census to seize control like Tom Delay and the Republicans in Texas did.

Another shining example of how the PARTY is more important than the people they claim to represent!

Rather than listen to the people, live up to their promises, accept responsibility, and protect the citizens and their representative Constitutional republic, they will play 'games' to adjust and manipulate the system. To contrive and conjure political boundaries and engage in anything other than what they are sworn into to office to do.

I agree grover, it is legal; but it being legal hardly makes it ethical or the right thing to do.

Grover could you link some support for the legality of this? I am not calling you out on offering false information I would just like to know more about it.

In this case I must say the action, or planned action, seems highly questionable. I think Maxmars statement is quite precise:

Another shining example of how the PARTY is more important than the people they claim to represent!

Rather than listen to the people, live up to their promises, accept responsibility, and protect the citizens and their representative Constitutional republic, they will play 'games' to adjust and manipulate the system. To contrive and conjure political boundaries and engage in anything other than what they are sworn into to office to do.

reply to post by Animal


"Republican or not what is being proposed is completely contrary to the ideals that this nation was founded and has evolved to uphold. "

..and that's the problem, your average American is completely clueless about these things. They think the govt has every right to do whatever they want simply because they are the govt. This ignorance is finally catching up with us and frankly its too late. Nothing short of a revolution is going to turn it around either.

Originally posted by LwSiX
This ignorance is finally catching up with us and frankly its too late. Nothing short of a revolution is going to turn it around either.

I really truly hope you are wrong. A revolution of ideas and actions would be fine but I really do dread the idea of a violent revolution, though revolutions are often the needed medicine for every nation I still an not embrace the violence that accompanies them.

reply to post by Animal


Generally speaking the census is the engine that drives the political process in this country in that district maps are drawn and redrawn based on them and consequently effects the make up of congress:

In 36 states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to approval by the state governor. To reduce the role that legislative politics might play, 5 states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey and Washington), carry out congressional redistricting by an independent, bipartisan commission. Iowa and Maine give independent bodies authority to propose redistricting plans, but preserve the role of legislatures to approve them. Seven states avoid the issue completely because their low populations qualify them for only a single representative for the entire state; these are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. The state constitutions and laws also mandate which body has responsibility over drawing the state legislature boundaries. In addition, those municipal governments that are elected on a district basis (as opposed to at-large) also redistrict.

Each state has its own standards for creating Congressional and legislative districts. In addition to equalizing the population of districts and complying with Federal requirements, criteria may include attempting to create compact, contiguous districts, trying to keep political units and communities within a single district, and avoiding the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection. In the states where the legislature (or another body where a partisan majority is possible such as IL or OH) is in charge of redistricting, the possibility of gerrymandering (the deliberate manipulation of political boundaries for electoral advantage, usually of incumbents or a specific political party) often makes the process very politically contentious, especially when the two houses of the legislature, or the legislature and the governor, are from different parties. The state and federal court systems are often involved in resolving disputes over Congressional and legislative redistricting when gridlock prevents redistricting in a timely manner. In addition, the losers to an adopted redistricting plan often challenge it in state and federal courts. Justice Department approval (which is known as preclearence) is required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in certain states that have had a history of racial barriers to voting.

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. So many states (including Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia and Maryland) have succeeded in removing competition for most House seats in those states that it has deadened competition for House seats nationally. Other states (New York, New Jersey, California) have opted to protect incumbents of both parties, again reducing the number of competitive districts. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Pennsylvania gerrymander in Vieth v. Jubelirer [1] effectively cemented the right of elected officials to choose their constituents, and it is up to a small number of competitive districts in a small number of states to determine majority control of Congress, since each party has about 190 districts which have very little likelihood of changing party control. The 2003 redistricting in Texas and the mid-decade redistricting in Georgia established the precedent of allowing the majority party in state governments to redraw the boundaries to favor the election of the majority-party candidates in subsequent elections.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Animal


Honestly i hope i am, but power does what it wants and it will stop at nothing to keep it that way. I mean its become pretty obvious to me that they dont care what we think..

[edit on 7-7-2008 by LwSiX]

reply to post by Animal


In Australia, many governments will have the Electoral Commission re-distribute electoral boundaries similar to what you are talking about, Animal...

Usually they will swear blue its only to take into account changes in population, but most people realise its to maximise their chance of holding onto existing seats, or taking existing seats or claiming new ones born of the changes to the boundaries at the next election...

Here we call it "gerrymandering" and like I said, governments on both sides of the spectrum and in both state and federal politics have done it over the years...

Peace