MARYLAND’S GERRYMANDERING ORDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FED JUDGES (PG COUNTY)

MARYLAND’S GERRYMANDERING ORDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FEDERAL JUDGES (PG COUNTY):

VOTERS WHO DID NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES WERE OFTEN PUNISHED POLITICALLY AFTER ELECTIONS.

CONGRESSIONAL MAPS MUST NOW BE REDRAWN PRIOR TO 2020 ELECTION.

FAIR ELECTIONS ARE WHAT DEFINES AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

LEGAL CITIZENS OF ALL RACES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES OF THEIR CHOICE WITHOUT FEAR.


Post Sources: Washington Post


**** Federal judges in gerrymandering case toss Maryland’s congressional voting map


Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020.

The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a long-running partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan.

The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th Congressional District because of their political affiliation.

“When political considerations are taken into account to an extreme, the public perceives an abuse of the democratic process,” wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. He was joined by U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III.

Chief U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the overall judgment and declaring partisan gerrymandering “noxious, a cancer on our democracy.”

If the state is unable to meet the deadline for creating a new map, the court’s order establishes a commission that will create a map of its own.

The Wednesday ruling can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which in June avoided answering the question of when extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional in the Maryland case and in another map case from Wisconsin.

The office of Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), which defended the map, said Wednesday that it is reviewing its options. Legislative leaders declined to comment on the court’s order.

Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who won reelection Tuesday, called the decision “a victory for the vast majority of Marylanders who want free and fair elections.”

“We remain steadfastly committed to moving forward in an open and transparent manner that is free of the partisan influence that has dominated the redistricting process in Maryland for far too long,” said Hogan, who has pushed for a constitutional amendment that would have an independent redistricting commission redraw boundaries.

At the core of the issue is the 6th District in Western Maryland, which was ­redrawn in 2011 to include parts of heavily Democratic Montgomery County. Democratic mapmakers moved hundreds of thousands of voters from Western Maryland out of the 6th District and added Democrats from Montgomery.

The lawsuit was brought by seven Republican voters who lived in the 6th District before the boundaries were reset.

In its ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel declared the district unconstitutional and found that the state intended to lessen the influence of GOP voters by replacing them with Democrats in violation of the First Amendment right to political association.

“The massive and unnecessary reshuffling of the Sixth District, involving one-half of its population and dictated by party affiliation and voting history, had no other cause than the intended actions of the controlling Democratic officials to burden Republican voters by converting the District” into a Democratic one, Niemeyer wrote in his 59-page opinion.

The court ruling came a day after Democrat David Trone defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by a wide margin in that district, in what was considered the most competitive of Maryland’s House contests.

In a deposition in the case, former governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, was blunt about the partisan mapmaking he oversaw, saying Democratic leaders intentionally redrew the districts to try to give their party an advantage.

“Yesterday’s results confirm what we’ve been saying all along. The 6th District isn’t really competitive for Republicans,” said attorney Michael B. Kimberly, who represents the group of Maryland Republicans.

The ruling rejected the argument from the attorney general’s office that Democratic leaders intended only to make the 6th District more competitive.

“It is impossible to flip a seat to the Democrats without flipping it away from the Republicans,” Niemeyer wrote. “There can be no doubt that at every stage of the process, the State’s Democratic officials who put the 2011 redistricting plan in place specifically intended to flip control of the Sixth District from Republicans to Democrats and then acted on that intent.”

The ruling applies to the entire Maryland congressional map as drawn in 2011, but the challengers have proposed a modification at the border between the 6th and 8th districts that could address the court’s concerns without affecting the shape of the other districts.

Before the ruling Wednesday, state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) cast doubt on the possibility of an independent commission without a sign-on from other states — Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina — to ensure Maryland Democrats are not at a political disadvantage on Capitol Hill.

“To put that in play without all of those states having to abide by the same rules is not going to happen,” Miller said.

NET NEUTRALITY UPHELD BY FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST CABLE COMPANIES

NET NEUTRALITY UPHELD BY FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST CABLE COMPANIES (GOOGLE FIBER):

Sources: Politico, Youtube

It's Official!

Thanks to a Federal Appeal judge's decision, Pres Obama and some members of Congress, all human beings who reside on American soil will enjoy access to a Free and Open Internet highway.

The Cable company barons have vowed to continue fighting for their legal right to restrict access.

Hello Google FIBER!

***** Court upholds Obama-backed net neutrality rules

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, affirmed the FCC's latest net neutrality rules, which consumer groups and President Barack Obama have backed as essential to prevent broadband providers from blocking or degrading internet traffic. 

The telecom industry and Republicans have heavily criticized the rules as burdensome and unnecessary regulation, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruzonce labeling it “Obamacare for the Internet.”

AT&T immediately announced it would appeal the ruling, saying it's always expected the issue to be decided by the Supreme Court. 

Several industry trade groups are expected to join the effort.

The court decision marks a victory for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who led the agency’s Democratic majority in approving the rules in February 2015 over the objections of the agency's two GOP commissioners. 

The rules apply utility-style regulation originally written for telephone companies to both land-based and wireless Internet services.

Wheeler on Tuesday celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web.”

“It ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,” the FCC chairman said in a statement. “After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the Commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections — both on fixed and mobile networks — that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future.”

Big internet service providers, such as Verizon and Comcast, argued the rules will chill investment in network infrastructure. AT&T and CenturyLink, along with cable, wireless and telecom trade groups, filed the lawsuit to overturn the order.

During oral arguments in December, appeals court judges David Tatel, Sri Srinivasan and Stephen Williams had seemed receptive to the FCC’s decision to ground its net neutrality rules in telephone-style regulation. 

In the majority opinion, written by Tatel and Srinivasan, the judges said the FCC's approach was bolstered by how people view the internet today. 

"These conclusions about consumer perception find extensive support in the record and together justify the Commission’s decision," they wrote.

The majority also let stand the FCC's decision to apply net neutrality rules to the wireless internet, citing the "rapidly growing and virtually universal use of mobile broadband service.” 

That's a critical feature of the rules, since many people today access the web through smartphones.

Williams, the lone dissenter, said he agreed the FCC has the authority to change how it regulates broadband providers, but said the agency didn’t provide enough reasons doing so.

Congressional Democrats cheered the court decision as a win for consumers and free speech, with Bernie Sanders tweeting that it "will help ensure we don't turn over our democracy to the highest bidder." 

Republicans criticized the opinion, and some GOP lawmakers reiterated calls for legislation to undo the FCC's order and create rules that are less burdensome to industry.

"This is why we need to rewrite the Communications Act," Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said. "There's a better way to protect consumers from blocking and throttling without stifling innovation or delaying build-out. That way requires action by Congress."

But public interest groups involved in the net neutrality battle urged industry and Republicans to give up the fight.

"The people have spoken, the courts have spoken and this should be the last word on net neutrality," Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement.

Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai — who voted against the net neutrality order — said big cable and telecom firms should keep pursuing the case in court.

"I continue to believe that these regulations are unlawful, and I hope that the parties challenging them will continue the legal fight,” Pai said.

The telecom sector has a successful track record in thwarting the FCC’s net neutrality efforts. 

A lawsuit by Verizon scuttled the agency’s previous 2010 Open Internet order.

U.S. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS GAY MARRIAGE IN UTAH

#GayMarriageUTAH

U.S. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS GAY MARRIAGE IN UTAH


ARTICLE: "Supreme Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriage In Utah"

The Supreme Court filed an order Monday that blocks gay marriages in Utah, giving state officials time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The high court issued a stay “pending final disposition,” according to the order issued Monday. State officials have been appealing to a federal appeals court to reverse a recent ruling that allowed same-sex marriages to continue.

The temporary stay on Monday effectively reinstates an earlier ban the state imposed on such marriages. The order doesn’t indicate that any justices dissented, thereby suggesting the full Court supported the stay, according to SCOTUSblog.

This decision comes just two weeks after a federal district court Judge Robert J. Shelby struck down a ban on same-sex marriages in the state.

Shelby said the ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

Utah became the 18th state, in addition to Washington, D.C., to allow gay marriages when Shelby overturned the ban on Dec. 20.

Just a few days later, a federal appeals court upheld Shelby’s decision, and rejected an emergency request by Utah officials to block the marriages. The panel said issuing a stay on the ruling was “not warranted” as Utah officials could go through the appeals process.

Last Tuesday, however, Utah officials filed an emergency appeal to prevent the marriages from continuing.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor oversees such requests and ordered a group of same-sex couples challenging that appeal to respond to the state by noon last Friday.

As of last Tuesday, at least 900 same-sex couples were able to get married since Shelby had issued his decision, according to multiple reports.

Shelby’s ruling came as a surprise, and was heavily praised by gay rights groups. He is only the second federal judge to reverse a state ban on same-sex marriage, as The New York Times notes.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco was the first when he struck down California’s proposition 8 in 2010.


Sources: CNN, The Hill