This case in 1986 ruled that using Gerrymandering for diluting the opposition party’s voting ability *is* a matter for the courts.
So that was a plus.
But it’s hit or miss since.
The point is that it _can_ be ruled as illegal. They don’t have free reign to draw willy-nilly, although they keep trying.
Shells of govt. There are many practices that are illegal on a state level but not illegal on a Federal level
Because: Some things are illegal at state levels that aren’t illegal at federal levels.
Remember: Each State also has its own Constitution or something like it and can make rules govrening their own House and Senate.
50 lil countries.
Of course. But I wouldn’t discount States’ powers.
Many things are NOT strongly worded at the Federal level to ALLOW for license at the State levels.
If the State has STRONGER rules than the Federal, the State wins.
Florida has an UNUSUALLY strong Constitution. Much stronger and far more powerful than the Federal Constitution.
It’s saved Florida from having to deal with a lot of crap other states go through.
Florida’s solution was held as a model.
“In its majority opinion Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court referenced Florida’s Constitution in asserting that states have the ability to solve this issue themselves.”
Gerrymandering and redistricting aren’t the same thing.
Texas has a very weak constitution. It’s almost as weak as New Hampshire, which has the weakest.
It might be why you don’t reference state level stuff much.
I grew up in NJ which has a strong Constitution. Florida’s is also strong but has some Texas style gaps, just not as wide.
Gerrymandering and redistricting aren’t the same thing. Thank you for greater precision.
And no,, 1986 Supreme Court (below) indicates that not only racial but also using Gerrymandering while redistricting (better?) to weaken opponent’s districts *can* be ruled ILLEGAL in the lower courts.
ILLEGAL in Florida might be LEGAL in Arkansas.
It is ILLEGAL to spit on the sidewalk in City A but LEGAL in City B.
Gerrymandering in its extreme is notable. Most redistricting though is NOT gerrymandered but compact.
a) If weak at federal, can be strong at state.
b) if strong at federal, state can’t override federal.
I know. I’m just pointing out A. B is known.
http://redistricting.lls.edu/where-tablefed.php Here. 8 states make gerrymandering illegal. The rest is hit or miss.
Florida State Gov _still_ tries to skirt its own laws though. Back in 2011 an atrocious plan by Gov Rick Scott’s folks ALMOST made an obvious Gerrymandering go through, but the courts wisely struck it down and in no uncertain terms.
But they’ll try again. Gotta watch.
Fox in the hen house: In 2010, Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to STRENGTHEN anti-Gerrymandering laws.
“yet Republicans kept winning tons of the state’s congressional seats”
Weirdest thing, huh. Not long after, the coup was spotted, brought to court, struck down.
The reason these aren’t Federal matters is that the gosh dern States ought to be able to manage their own rules of fairness and equity.
As far as your question about lib vs cons districts? I’d use a population density mathematical mapping and screw all this customization shit.
How things stand is that it ASSUMES folks live ALWAYS with like-minded neighbors.
But do you think like your neighbors?