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.

SCOTUS BLOCKS NORTH CAROLINA ANTI-GERRYMANDERING DECISION FROM LOWER COURT (2018 & 2020)

SCOTUS BLOCKS NC ANTI-GERRYMANDERING DECISION FROM LOWER COURT:

GOP’S NC VOTING DISTRICTS APPROVED.

BLACK ELITE NORTH CAROLINA LEADERS & WHITE DEM LEADERS WERE TOO BUSY BEING RACIALLY DIVIDED TO SEE THIS POLITICAL ALBATROSS LOOMING OVERHEAD.

WHILE BLACK ELITE & WHITE DEM LEADERS WERE COMFORTABLY BLOCKING PROGRESS FOR LOCAL NC VOTERS, THE GOP QUIETLY REVISED NORTH CAROLINA’S VOTING DISTRICTS.

“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR, 1964


Sources: NY Times, PBS News, The Young Turks, YouTube


**** Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks North Carolina Gerrymandering Ruling


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a trial court’s order requiring North Carolina lawmakers to produce a revised congressional voting map, making it likely that the midterm elections this year will be conducted using districts favorable to Republican candidates.

The trial court had found that Republican legislators in the state had violated the Constitution by drawing congressional voting districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates.

The Supreme Court’s move was expected and not particularly telling. The court, which is considering two other major tests of partisan gerrymandering, has granted stays in similar settings. Its decisions in the pending cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, are likely to effectively decide the North Carolina case, too.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted dissents from Thursday’s order, which was brief and unsigned.

The previous North Carolina decision, issued by a three-judge panel last week, was the first from a federal court to strike down a congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. Republican state lawmakers, the court said, had violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection by drawing voting districts to their party’s advantage.

The judges noted that the legislator responsible for drawing the map had not disguised his intentions. “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said the legislator, Representative David Lewis, a Republican. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

The plan worked. In 2016, the court said, Republican congressional candidates won 53 percent of the statewide vote. But they won in 10 of the 13 congressional districts, or 77 percent of them.

The Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering can violate the Constitution. But it has never struck down a voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Republicans and, in private, many Democrats in North Carolina had expected the Supreme Court to stay last week’s ruling, which ordered legislators to prepare a new map by Jan. 24. But elected officials and political strategists had been preparing for the possibility of a hasty redrawing of the congressional map and an upending of carefully laid plans for the midterm campaigns.

Even the brief gap between the trial court’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s order left the state in turmoil weeks before the deadline to declare candidacies.

Few states in recent years have seen as much political turbulence as North Carolina, where Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2010 and now face off regularly with a Democratic governor. Many of the high-decibel clashes in North Carolina, even before Gov. Roy Cooper was elected in 2016, focused on elections and voting procedures.

A voter ID law has been the subject of contentious litigation, and a different three-judge panel concluded that many of the state’s legislative districts had been racially gerrymandered. In 2016, a court struck down a different version of the congressional map, saying it was a racial gerrymander.

But last week’s ruling stirred particular anger in Raleigh, the state capital, with Republicans infuriated that the judges had begun making arrangements for a court-appointed expert to draw a map as an alternative to one that the Legislature might develop.

Although observers said the three-judge panel’s ruling, stayed or not, had offered Democrats a valuable talking point in the months before midterm elections, Republicans welcomed the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday.

“We did fully expect this, but we are still grateful,” said Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, who complained in an interview that the lower court had tried to “inject chaos into our elections.” Mr. Woodhouse said he fully expected that this year’s elections would be carried out under the existing map.

Critics of the map expressed disappointment and frustration with the court’s order.

“We still believe the day is coming soon for the General Assembly to be held to account for this madness,” said Allison Riggs of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, a group that challenged the map. “The law and the facts of this case make that clear.”

J. Michael Bitzer, a political scientist at Catawba College, near Charlotte, said the Supreme Court’s order was an important, if perhaps temporary, win for Republicans in North Carolina.

“Certainly, Republicans will view this as a victory but probably a short-term victory,” he said. “They certainly dodged a bullet tonight. The question is: ‘How long do we have before the Wisconsin decision comes down, and what kind of impact will that have on 2018’s elections?’”

In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case from Wisconsin. The trial court in that case had struck down a voting map for the State Assembly as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

The Supreme Court has also agreed to decide whether Maryland Democrats crossed a constitutional line by redrawing House districts to flip a Republican-held seat to Democratic control.

In asking the Supreme Court to block the North Carolina ruling, state lawmakers said the trial court had made legal errors and unreasonable demands, notably in ordering new congressional maps to be drawn by Jan. 24.

The lawmakers’ brief reminded the justices that they had granted a stay in the Wisconsin case. “Particularly given the relief this court already granted to Wisconsin,” they wrote, “it makes no sense whatsoever to force North Carolina to immediately remedy a purported partisan gerrymandering violation and commence its 2018 election cycle under a new court-imposed map before this court can even decide whether and under what circumstances such claims may be adjudicated.”

In their own brief, lawyers for Democrats challenging the map said the lawmakers’ motive in seeking a stay was “plain as day.”

“The Republican contingent of the legislature wants to enjoy the fruits of their grossly unconstitutional actions for yet another election cycle,” the brief said.

Prison-Based Gerrymandering & Privatization: 21st Century Jim Crow!

"Prison Life Can Shatter The Soul & Will Of Anyone Who Experiences It. It Destroys Thought Utterly."
Antonio Gramsci

“More African American men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began."
Michelle Alexander

If Black & Hispanic Voters Stay Home In 2012 Versus Going To The Polls For Pres. Obama's Re-election, There Will Be Even MORE Black & Hispanic Men Thrown Into Prison Or Being Wrongly Convicted Solely For The Purpose Of Bringing In More Revenue For States & To Help Both Racist GOP & Democrats Win Elections.

Its NOT About Crime Prevention!

Instead Its Really About Prison-Based Gerrymandering, Racism & Privatization Of Prisons.

What Is Prison-Based Gerrymandering You Ask?

According To Wikipedia Prison-Based Gerrymandering:

Occurs when prisoners are counted as residents of a particular district increasing the district's population with non-voters when assigning political apportionment.

This phenomenon, according to prisoners' rights organization, violates the principle of one person, one vote.

So Now We Know How Some State Legislators Are Able To Remain In Office For Decades In "Certain Districts" Without Doing Much Of Anything To Properly Represent The Constituents Of Those "Certain Districts".

Let's Face It, If The Constituents Of Those "Certain Districts" Are Black & Hispanic Prisoners Who Cares Right?

How Sad.

For The Record States Are Not The Only Benefactors Of Prison Privatization.

So Are Government Contractors & Thousands Of State Legislators.

Is It Safe To Say That Investing In Prison Privatization Is The New Hedge Funds?

Yes!

And Is It Safe To Say Because There Are More Black & Hispanic Men In Prisons Than In College, Prisons Represent 21st Century Jim Crow Systemic Racism?

Yes!

Excuse Me!

But Shouldn't There Should Be More Black & Hispanic Men In COLLEGE Than Prison?

And Whose Bright Idea Was It To Put Children In Prison With Adults?

No Child (Mainly Boys) Should Be Confined To Prison Cells, Living With Adult Men Who Often Prey On Them!

As Stated Above If Black & Hispanic Voters Stay Home In 2012 Versus Going To The Polls For Pres. Obama's Re-election, Such Destruction Of Black & Hispanic Men & Children Will Continue.

For More Information About How Rapidly U.S. Prisons Are Being Used As The New Jim Crow To Hinder & Stop Progress In Black Communities, Please Read Michelle Alexander's Book: "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age".

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!




More Black Men Now in Prison System than Enslaved in 1850


“More African American men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began,”

Michelle Alexander told a standing room only house at the Pasadena Main Library this past Wednesday, the first of many jarring points she made in a riveting presentation.

Alexander, currently a law professor at Ohio State, had been brought in to discuss her year-old bestseller, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness More Black Men Now in Prison System than Enslaved in 1850. Interest ran so high beforehand that the organizers had to move the event to a location that could accommodate the eager attendees.

That evening, more than 200 people braved the pouring rain and inevitable traffic jams to crowd into the library’s main room, with dozens more shuffled into an overflow room, and even more latecomers turned away altogether. Alexander and her topic had struck a nerve.

Growing crime rates over the past 30 years don’t explain the skyrocketing numbers of black — and increasingly brown — men caught in America’s prison system, according to Alexander, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun after attending Stanford Law. “In fact, crime rates have fluctuated over the years and are now at historical lows.”

“Most of that increase is due to the War on Drugs, a war waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color,” she said, even though studies have shown that whites use and sell illegal drugs at rates equal to or above blacks. In some black inner-city communities, four of five black youth can expect to be caught up in the criminal justice system during their lifetimes.

As a consequence, a great many black men are disenfranchised, said Alexander — prevented because of their felony convictions from voting and from living in public housing, discriminated in hiring, excluded from juries, and denied educational opportunities.

“What do we expect them to do?” she asked, who researched her ground-breaking book while serving as Director of the Racial Justice Project at the ACLU of Northern California. “Well, seventy percent return to prison within two years, that’s what they do.”

Organized by the Pasadena Public Library and the Flintridge Center, with a dozen or more cosponsors, including the ACLU Pasadena/Foothills Chapter and Neighborhood Church, and the LA Progressive as the sole media sponsor, the event drew a crowd of the converted, frankly — more than two-thirds from Pasadena’s well-established black community and others drawn from activists circles. Although Alexander is a polished speaker on a deeply researched topic, little she said stunned the crowd, which, after all, was the choir. So the question is what to do about this glaring injustice.

Married to a federal prosecutor, Alexander briefly touched on the differing opinion in the Alexander household. “You can imagine the arguments we have,” Alexander said in relating discussions she has with her husband. “He thinks there are changes we can make within the system,” she said, agreeing that there are good people working on the issues and that improvements can be made. “But I think there has to be a revolution of some kind.”

However change is to come, a big impediment will be the massive prison-industrial system.

“If we were to return prison populations to 1970 levels, before the War on Drugs began,” she said. “More than a million people working in the system would see their jobs disappear.”

Of all African-American men that were born in 1965 or later with less than a high school diploma, 60 percent have a prison record (28 months median time served).

So it’s like America’s current war addiction. We have built a massive war machine — one bigger than all the other countries in the world combined — with millions of well-paid defense industry jobs and billions of dollars at stake. With a hammer that big, every foreign policy issue looks like a nail — another bomb to drop, another country to invade, another massive weapons development project to build.

Similarly, with such a well-entrenched prison-industrial complex in place — also with a million jobs and billions of dollars at stake — every criminal justice issue also looks like a nail — another prison sentence to pass down, another third strike to enforce, another prison to build in some job-starved small town, another chance at a better life to deny.

Alexander, who drew her early inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., devotes the last part of “The New Jim Crow” to steps people can take to combat this gross injustice. In particular, she recommended supporting the Drug Policy Alliance. At the book signing afterwards, Dr. Anthony Samad recruited Michelle Alexander to appear this fall at one his Urban Issues Forums, typically held at the California African American Museum next to USC.

Recently we ran a piece written by Dick Price entitled, “More Black Men Now in Prison System Than Were Enslaved“. Tens of thousands read it. Many left comments. The popularity of his article and the comments posted has lead to this follow-up article.

The article Dick wrote was a recap of a talk given by Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow (see image to the left). Alexander, a civil rights attorney turned scholar, recently made an appearance in Southern California. She delivered an information packed presentation at the Pasadena Library, to a standing-room-only crowd.

Dick wrote a review of her talk. In this article I focus on a specific topic addressed in her book — what is driving the growth in the prison population and prison-based gerrymandering.

Like the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex has had far-reaching negative consequences many of which remain unaddressed or ignored by the larger society. At the same time, this system is also benefitting certain sectors of the population. This article touches on both of these issues.

Prison-Based Gerrymandering

The practice of gerrymandering is one of the costs to our democracy. This practice renders a small minority of Americans with more voting power than others. But the mass incarceration phenomenon is also costing the U.S. taxpayer more than $60 billion per year for federal, state and local prison systems (source The Sentencing Project).

Speaking of the unprecedented growth of the prison population in a recent ABC News article, Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project had this to say:

“The unrivaled growth of the United States’ incarcerated population over 30 years casts a great burden on this nation. The country’s $60 billion prison budget results in less money for education, health care and child services. Communities need the resources to prevent crime by investing in youth and families.”

Many of the people who read Dick’s article questioned whether the natural growth in the U.S. population could explain the growth of the prison population. The Justice Department released a report that makes it clear that the rate of growth in the prison population far exceeds the rate of growth in the U.S. population. You can also read a quick article on this reported by ABC News.

Legal scholar and author Michelle Alexander spent years researching this unprecedented growth. She did not come to this research with preconceived notions. In fact, she makes it clear that before she embarked upon this investigation, she was of the mindset that radical activists were making more of this “prison-industrial complex” than they should. Then she got a fellowship that allowed her the free time needed to delve into the numbers. She slowly but surely drew new conclusions.

The reason her “awakening” is one of the most poignant aspects of this story is because it magnifies the depth and breath of the blindness that she talks about in her book. Michelle Alexander is a black woman. She was a civil rights attorney. She worked for the ACLU and even she was blind to the magnitude of this problem and its racial component until she took a look at the numbers.

It should not be surprising that the vast majority of Americans who have not taken a look at the numbers are clueless about the toll this is taking on all of us.

Matt Pillischer is producing a documentary entitled,”Broken on All Sides”, that takes a hard look at what is driving this unprecedented growth in our prisons.

While it seems almost impossible to get any traction on this issue, lack of knowledge continues to be a contributing factor that helps to support the phenomenal prison growth especially as it relates to black and now brown male inmates. Some think that black and browns are growing demographics in the prison population because they commit more crime. This assertion has been debunked. Evidence suggests that the war on drugs has a very specific demographic that is targeted.

ABC News ran a report in response to the Justice Department’s announcement that the United States had 2.3 million inmates in custody. Speaking of the Justice Department report, ABC News said:

The report provides a breakdown, noting “of the 2.3 million inmates in custody, 2.1 million were men and 208,300 were women. Black males represented the largest percentage (35.4 percent) of inmates held in custody, followed by white males (32.9 percent) and Hispanic males (17.9 percent).”

The United States leads the industrialized world in incarceration. In fact, the U.S. rate of incarceration (762 per 100,000) is five to eight times that of other highly developed countries, according to The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice think tank.

Some of the key factors for the record imprisonment rate include:

Race:
Black males continue to be incarcerated at an extraordinary rate. Black males make up 35.4 percent of the jail and prison population — even though they make up less than 10 percent of the overall U.S population. Four percent of U.S. black males were in jail or prison last year, compared to 1.7 percent of Hispanic males and .7 percent of white males. In other words, black males were locked up at almost six times the rate of their white counterparts.

Immigration:
Is it an emerging crime trend or is this the result of more local police and federal targeting of illegal immigrants? Non-U.S. citizens accounted for nearly 8 percent of the jail population at midyear 2007, the new Justice Department report noted. “From mid-year 2000 through midyear 2007, Hispanic men (120,000) represented the largest increase to the custody population,” it said.

In an essay published two years ago in Time magazine, the writers of The Wire made the argument that they believe the war on drugs has devolved into a war on the underclass, that in places like West and East Baltimore, where the drug economy is now the only factory still hiring and where the educational system is so crippled that the vast majority of children are trained only for the corners, a legal campaign to imprison our most vulnerable and damaged citizens is little more than amoral.

The Sentencing Project has reported that more than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their twenties, 1 in every 8 is in prison or jail on any given day. These trends have been intensified by the disproportionate impact of the “war on drugs,” in which three-fourths of all persons in prison for drug offenses are people of color. And now, with prison populations bursting at the seams, there is a movement underway to shift to privatization. I’ll be writing more on this in future articles. But please move on to the next page of this article to find out more about the collateral consequences of our current sentencing policies and how it impacts all Americans.

Modern Day 3/5ths Compromise

Last week in her talk, Michelle Alexander addressed most of the salient points covered in her award-winning book with one exception; she didn’t talk much about the impact of mass incarceration on the census, particularly with regard to redistricting. Because I knew this topic was covered in the book , I asked Ms. Alexander to give the audience her condensed version of what has come to be known as prison-based gerrymandering during the Q&A.

Audible gasps could be heard from the audience as Alexander explained census residence rules which require that people who are incarcerated be counted at their places of incarceration on Census Day as opposed to their home addresses while, at the same time, almost without exception these people do not have the right to vote. Alexander went on to say that most prisons are constructed in rural areas yet most people who are incarcerated come from urban areas. The shift in population from urban to rural increases the political clout of rural communities while decreasing the political clout of urban communities.

In addressing the census residence rule and specifically prison-based gerrymandering, the NAACP Legal Defense fund reports:

This residence rule skews the balance of political power by inflating the population counts of communities where prisons are located by including the non-voting prison populations in these districts during the redistricting process.

Over the last several decades, the percentage of Americans incarcerated in prisons has increased four-fold. Incarcerated persons are often held in areas that are geographically and demographically far removed from their home communities. For instance, although non-metropolitan counties contain only 20% of the national population, they host 60% of new prisons.

In addition, because Latinos and African Americans are incarcerated at three to seven times the rate of Whites, where incarcerated people are counted has tremendous implications for how African-American and Latino populations are reflected in the census, and, consequently, how these communities are impacted through redistricting.

Recently, three states enacted legislation that would adjust for prison populations such that their numbers wouldn’t artificially inflate the population numbers of the district where the prison is located. Legislators in Maryland, New York and Delaware had the foresight to prepare for the 2010 census by addressing this in various forms of legislation. But the rest of the nation still operates under a policy that disproportionately disadvantages black and brown communities and gives unearned advantage and power to small, rural, mostly white communities.

The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) documents the impact of mass incarceration on individuals, communities, and the national welfare. They produce research and make it available to empower the public to participate in creating better criminal justice policy. Their main focus is on ending prison-based gerrymandering. According to PPI , the 2010 census counted 2 million people in the wrong place. They give specific examples of how and where this happened, for example, PPI sites the following:

In 2002, the New York State Senate deliberately underpopulated districts in the upstate region while overpopulating districts in the downstate region. This problem ran parallel to the fact that the Census Bureau credited downstate residents to upstate census counts, and together served to dilute minority voting rights. For example, one of those upstate districts was the 59th Senate District, drawn to contain 294,256 people instead of the 306,072 that each district should have contained. Using Census data, the state reported that the district contained 6,273 African Americans, but three quarters of this population was incarcerated residents of other parts of the state.

The legislature used the prison population to disguise the fact that the district had the smallest African-American population of any senate district in the state and they deliberately underpopulated that district to give it extra influence.


View Larger Map

Sources: ACA DMC Task Force/Symposium (August 1, 2010), Amazon.com, LA Progressive, National Geographic, NY Times, Prison Policy Initiative, Sentencing Project, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

North Carolina's History Of Illegal, Partisan Gerrymandering: Stealing Elections!

NC: 12th Congressional District Seat Tricky Piece Of Redistricting Puzzle


With the newfound power of redistricting in their hands, North Carolina Republicans will likely seek to draw districts that give them a chance to win more congressional seats in future elections. Despite winning statewide congressional voting by a 55-45 percent margin, Democrats hold just a 7-6 edge in congressional seats. With the power to shape district maps at their disposal, Republicans should easily be able to reverse that margin, at minimum.

Nevertheless, redistricting has been a contentious process in the past, with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.

These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.

The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.

The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.

In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with Minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.

The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of Voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of Minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional Minority districts with more than 50 percent Minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several Voting districts.

The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.

The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.

State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the Minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.

Concerned that the reduction would amount to Illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.

One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.

According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”

Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ.

“Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate Minority voters into one district. Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”

Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.">with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.

These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.

The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.

The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.

In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.

The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.

The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.

The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.

State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.

Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.

One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.

According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”

Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ. “Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate minority voters into one district.

Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”

Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.




US Supreme Court Holds To Narrow Interpretation Of The Voting Rights Act



The Federal Voting Rights Act does not authorize vote dilution lawsuits in voting districts in which a particular racial or ethnic group comprises less than 50 percent of the voting age population.

In a 5 to 4 decision announced on Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected a claim that so-called minority crossover districts qualify for protection under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Instead, the court's conservative wing embraced a narrow view of the law.

Crossover districts are those in which a cohesive minority voting population can elect candidates of its choice by forming a coalition with cross-over votes from whites or other non-minority voters.

The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.

The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina's House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina's voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.

The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.

State officials discovered that if they adhered to the "whole county provision" of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.

Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state's whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.

One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law's whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.

In affirming that decision, a plurality of the US Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act protects the voting clout of minority voters in districts in which minority voters comprise more than 50 percent of the voting age population.

"The rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with Section 2 [of the VRA]," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the plurality decision.

"We decline to depart from the uniform interpretation of Section 2 that has guided federal courts and state and local officials for more than 20 years," he said in the opinion.

"Minority groups in crossover districts cannot form a voting majority without crossover voters," Justice Kennedy wrote. "In those districts minority voters have the same opportunity to elect their candidate as any other political group with the same relative voting strength."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kennedy's decision in full. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, but did not agree with the underlying reasoning.

In a dissent, Justice David Souter said the plurality was being unfaithful to the intent of the Voting Rights Act.

"Minority voters in districts with minority populations under 50 percent routinely elect representatives of their choice," he said. "The effects of the plurality's unwillingness to face this fact are disturbing by any measure and flatly at odds with the obvious purpose of the act."

Justice Souter added, "States will be required under the plurality's rule to pack black voters into additional majority-minority districts, contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions in securing their preferred representation."

Justice Kennedy said that enforcing the VRA to protect minority voting clout in districts where minority voters did not constitute a majority would "grant special protection to a minority group's right to form political coalitions."

He added, "Section 2 does not impose on those who draw election districts a duty to give minority voters the most potential, or the best potential, to elect a candidate by attracting crossover voters." The law safeguards those who already possess the "potential to elect" favored representatives from losing that potential through vote dilution, he wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the high court's decision "severely undermines" the aim of the act. "Today's decision returns the ball to Congress' court," she wrote. "The legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of Section 2."

The case is Bartlett v. Strickland (07-689).




Supreme Court Limits Redistricting Provision Of Voting Rights Act


This week the US Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the minority vote dilution component (section 2) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In doing so the court interpreted the VRA to only protect the voting power of minority groups when they constitute a majority of the electorate in a legislative district. This ruling makes the requirements of section 2 significantly narrower then the defendant in the case, the chief elections official for the state of North Carolina, had believed it to be.

North Carolina had broken its own constitution's requirement that legislative districts respect county boundaries in order to avoid diminishing the concentration of African-American voters from 39% to 35% when redrawing a district in 2003. One of the now-split counties sued, resulting in this week's ruling.

Though the VRA speaks only generally of preventing the dilution of minority votes in order to preserve the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their own choosing, the court has now made clear that only districts with a majority of minority voters (a so called "majority-minority district") are protected from vote dilution. In North Carolina the district in question is a "coalition district" where minority voters are able to pick their choice of candidate only when joined in coalition with other voters.

The controlling opinion was written by Justice Kennedy in the conviction that courts need a clear rule for when section 2 applies to avoid what he views as the constitutionally suspect insertion of race into government decision making. While this decision is a loss for minority voting power and will likely lead to a greater number of minority "packed" districts, many Circuits Courts have previously adopted the Supreme Court's view, limiting the impact of this particular ruling.

The most positive aspect of the decision was a strong statement by Justice Kennedy that "racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history." Court watchers almost unanimously viewed Justice Kennedy's forceful assertions about the continued problems of racism as a sign that the court in another coming voting rights case (which will almost assuredly see Kennedy casting another deciding vote) will likely uphold the power of the Department of Justice to "pre-clear" election law changes in jurisdictions with a history of disenfranchising minorities to make sure that they don't violate voting rights.




Mel Watt Most Liberal NC Rep, Most Gerrymandered District (12th)


So Mel Watt is North Carolina's most Liberal Congressional Rep.

Really?

I guess "Liberal" is the new buzz word for sorry, ineffective Democrats seeking to raise Campaign funds.

Isn't Mel Watt's 12th District the MOST gerrymandered Congressional District in the state? He's been in there WAY too long.

Mel ONLY caters to Wall Street and his Fraternity/ Sorority friends that's it!

Where do you think Self-Serving, Sneaky, Empty-hearted Mayors like Anthony Foxx spawned from? Politicians like Mel Watt.

Mel is an Incumbent who keeps the rest of his constituents (mainly African-Americans) within North Carolina's 12th District poor so they can never challenge him.

Thus he's basically useless.

Due to North Carolina's Racist history, there was definitely a time when Gerrymandered districts were necessary.

However Politicians like Mel Watt are now abusing the true intended purpose of Gerrymandering for their own personal gain.

They advocate and push Straight Ticket Voting from their poorest Constituents which allows them to remain in Public Office NOT to help, but to become personally Wealthy.

In fact Mel Watt is so crooked he introduced a watered down amendment in 2009 which would have granted Wall Street execs more power to be corrupt and play games with Taxpayer money.

Even Alan Grayson slammed Mel Watt's bill.




Too many Black Youth are dropping out of High School and NOT attending College because of Mel Watt's Selfishness and Greed.

Does Mel care? Don't count on it!

North Carolina, especially Charlotte deserves better.

We need fresh blood in Congress.

Time to go Mel! Bye-bye.


View Larger Map


Sources: Americanindependent.com, Christian Science Monitor, C-Span, McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC, Southern Studies, WRAL, Youtube, Google Maps

Mel Watt (Gerrymanderer) Not Fully Onboard With Obama's Tax Cut Deal? I'm Surprised!

N.C. Democrats Wary Of Obama Tax Deal


As President Barack Obama worked Tuesday to sell the tax deal he reached late Monday with Republicans, Democrats across North Carolina offered somewhat tepid reviews of the plan.

The White House is pitching the deal as a "framework," allowing it some wiggle room as it moves through Congress. It includes a menu of tax extensions, tax cuts and tax credits, a package that some observers think could run more than $700 billion over two years.

"There’re some things in it I like, and some things in it I don’t like," said U.S. Rep. Mel Watt, a Charlotte Democrat, who is studying the deal. "It’s always a balancing act. It’s even more of a balancing act in this political environment."

As soon as the deal was announced, some liberals grumbled that the president had caved into Republican demands. Activists crashed two White House phone lines in logging their opposition Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. David Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat, said in a statement that Republicans were holding the middle class "hostage."

"It appears Republicans will only support extending unemployment insurance for jobless Americans and extending lower rates for middle class taxpayers if the wealthiest people in the country are given generous, unaffordable breaks on both income and estate taxes," Price said. "In short, Republicans are holding middle class taxpayers , the unemployed, and the country’s fiscal future hostage to the well-off, their peculiar brand of class warfare."

The deal includes a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class, a 2 percentage point cut in payroll taxes and an extension of several tax credits – all of which some Democrats said would help the middle class.

It all comes as Americans increasingly say they’re worried about the national debt.

"It doesn’t make any hard choices," Watt acknowledged. "At some point we’re going to have to bite the bullet, but we’re not going to do it yet."

Obama told reporters in a White House news conference Tuesday that though he vehemently opposed extending tax cuts to the wealthy, he made the deal with Republicans to prevent what he considered long-term impacts to jobless Americans.

"This is a situation where tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and immediately damaged," Obama said.

Across North Carolina, 232,285 residents could lose unemployment benefits in the coming year without the extension, according to a White House estimate released last week.

More than 16,000 of those residents live in Mecklenburg County, and Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx joined a White House conference call with reporters Tuesday to sell Obama’s deal.

"Fighting a battle over these issues any longer would only have worked to the disadvantage of the American people," Foxx said.

He acknowledged having qualms about extending tax cuts for the wealthy, but he said the tax credits for business expenses and for research and development will help Charlotte companies.

"(Obama) is also working to put the pieces in place to create jobs over the long term, and that is ultimately what all of us want," Foxx said. "What I’m most interested in is focusing on the fact that we’re going to be able to see businesses buy equipment and buy products that will help them grow, and the ripple effect is job growth, and that’s what we’re all interested in."

Many of Obama’s strongest supporters in the North Carolina delegation remained quiet Tuesday. U.S. Rep. Brad Miller’s spokeswoman said he is still thinking about the details of the plan. So is Price, of Chapel Hill. But moderate Democrats were more open to the deal.

U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell, a Biscoe Democrat, is happy to see lawmakers and the president work together for both unemployment benefits and tax cuts, said his spokesman, Christopher Schuler. "We’re happy with the framework they’ve reached."

U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre of Lumberton also liked the deal.

"Ensuring no tax increases for any Americans, extending unemployment benefits for those out of work, and providing workers with a payroll tax holiday is a strong way to finish the 111th Congress," McIntyre said in a statement. "Congress should pass this agreement, and keep working in a bi-partisan manner to get our economy moving again."

Watt said he expects to spend a lot of time studying the policy impacts before deciding how to vote.

"I don’t know how I will vote ultimately, because it’s just too early," Watt said. "I try not to be reactionary."







NC: 12th Congressional District Seat Tricky Piece Of Redistricting Puzzle


With the newfound power of redistricting in their hands, North Carolina Republicans will likely seek to draw districts that give them a chance to win more congressional seats in future elections. Despite winning statewide congressional voting by a 55-45 percent margin, Democrats hold just a 7-6 edge in congressional seats. With the power to shape district maps at their disposal, Republicans should easily be able to reverse that margin, at minimum.

Nevertheless, redistricting has been a contentious process in the past, with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.

These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.

The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.

The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.

In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with Minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.

The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of Voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of Minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional Minority districts with more than 50 percent Minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several Voting districts.

The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.

The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.

State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the Minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.

Concerned that the reduction would amount to Illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.

One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.

According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”

Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ.

“Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate Minority voters into one district. Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”

Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.">with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.

These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.

The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.

The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.

In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.

The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.

The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.

The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.

State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.

Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.

One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.

According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”

Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ. “Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate minority voters into one district.

Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”

Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.




Mel Watt Most Liberal NC Rep, Most Gerrymandered District (12th)


So Mel Watt is North Carolina's most Liberal Congressional Rep.

Really?

I guess "Liberal" is the new buzz word for sorry, ineffective Democrats seeking to raise Campaign funds.

Isn't Mel Watt's 12th District the MOST gerrymandered Congressional District in the state? He's been in there WAY too long.

Mel ONLY caters to Wall Street and his Fraternity/ Sorority friends that's it!

Where do you think Self-Serving, Sneaky, Empty-hearted Mayors like Anthony Foxx spawned from? Politicians like Mel Watt.

Mel is an Incumbent who keeps the rest of his constituents (mainly African-Americans) within North Carolina's 12th District poor so they can never challenge him.

Thus he's basically useless.

Due to North Carolina's Racist history, there was definitely a time when Gerrymandered districts were necessary.

However Politicians like Mel Watt are now abusing the true intended purpose of Gerrymandering for their own personal gain.

They advocate and push Straight Ticket Voting from their poorest Constituents which allows them to remain in Public Office NOT to help, but to become personally Wealthy.

In fact Mel Watt is so crooked he introduced a watered down amendment in 2009 which would have granted Wall Street execs more power to be corrupt and play games with Taxpayer money.

Even Alan Grayson slammed Mel Watt's bill.




Too many Black Youth are dropping out of High School and NOT attending College because of Mel Watt's Selfishness and Greed.

Does Mel care? Don't count on it!

North Carolina, especially Charlotte deserves better.

We need fresh blood in Congress.

Time to go Mel! Bye-bye.


View Larger Map


Sources: Americanindependent.com, C-Span, McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Gerrymandering 101: Its Fraud! No Longer Needed!

The Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts In The United States



(10.) North Carolina-12

This is what most people imagine when they think of a gerrymandered district — what I call “Gerrymander Classic.” NC-12 looks very much like the gerrymandered districts of the 19th century, but taken to extremes. As bad as it is, NC-12 at least looks like a congressional district, with meandering lines, consistent width, and hand-drawn appearance. As we’ll soon see, modern gerrymandering is often another animal altogether, with jarring shapes and artificial boundaries that are not just offensive to the eye but somehow feel like an insult to rationality.


(9.) Florida-20

This is what gerrymandering looks like in the modern era: ugly. Gone are any attempts at aesthetics. In the old days, redistricters at least tried to disguise their gerrymandering by drawing district lines that looked almost kinda sorta reasonable. No more. Nowadays many districts, with FL-20 being a good example, seem to be the result of computer algorithms with no regard whatsoever for human or natural boundaries. Needless to say, all sense of “community” within a congressional is out the window altogether when it is shaped like this, with jagged tendrils reaching out every which way to gobble up the desired demographic.


(8.) Pennsylvania-12

PA-12 is a rare example of “packing” (jamming as many opposition voters as possible into one district) that backfired. This district was created to be a Democratic stronghold formerly held by Congressman Jack Murtha, who was assumed to have a lock on the district. At the last redistricting in 2000, the Republicans in charge gave up on the area, which is solidly unionized, and decided to “pack” Murtha’s new district with as many Democrats as possible, to allow the remaining districts in the region a chance to have slim Republican majorities. But in the intervening ten years everything has changed: the area grew more and more conservative, and the locally popular Murtha died, opening up the seat to possible challengers.

In the 2010 election, PA-12 barely remained Democratic with Mark Critz winning by a hairsbreadth 50.8%-49.2% margin — while most of the surrounding districts overwhelmingly went Republican. Thus, if the foolish 2000 Republican redistricters had not consciously set out to create a “packed” Democratic district, and had instead just drawn the boundaries at random, they could have easily won all the races in the area, instead of losing this one (and the adjacent PA-4) by the slimmest of margins. Note to gerrymanderers: THINGS CHANGE. What may appear to be a wise gerrymander maneuver today may blow up in your face sometime in the future.


(7.) North Carolina-6

I have included NC-6 as a perfect example of “inverse gerrymandering,” a district that is partly hollowed out internally by a different gerrymandered district — in this case, the northern end of NC-12, our first example above. NC-6 is a stark reminder that no gerrymander is freestanding: all congressional districts are interlocked like jigsaw puzzle pieces, and every time you enclose any area by some outrageous boundary line, you are disincluding that same area from some surrounding district. So for every gerrymander you create, you are likely to also have a less-noticeable but just as offensive inverse gerrymander next door.


(6.) Florida-3

Florida has more than its fair share of gerrymandering nightmares. But while many of the state’s districts were admittedly drawn to favor Republican candidates, FL-3 is instead a federally mandated “minority-majority” district gerrymandered to give Black Voters a voice:

[FL-3] was drawn in 1992 to be North Florida’s black-majority seat and Democrats were shifted from the surrounding districts to make the surrounding districts more Republican. It currently stretches from Jacksonville’s downtown in the north to Orlando’s in the south, and stretches east and west to include other largely minority and Democratic areas such as Gainesville, Sanford and Eatonville.

As a result of this gerrymandering, the district is strongly Democratic with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D +18 and gave Obama 73% of its vote in the 2008 election. It is 50.9% black and 35.4% white. …

The 3rd District is at the center of the debate over the potential impact of the FairDistricts initiative. Due to its shape, the 3rd is one of several districts that violate restrictions in the initiative which require compact districts that conform to geographical and political boundaries. On the other hand, the 3rd District is protected by the Voting Rights Act and a non-compact shape may be necessary to ensure it remains an effective African-American seat.

The “FairDistricts Initiative,” ballot proposals designed to finally make Florida’s redistricting theoretically nonpartisan, was finally approved by voters this year on November 2 — but was immediately challenged in court not by the Republicans as you might imagine but by none other than Corrine Brown, the representative of FL-3! Why? Because the new law stipulates that districts be geographically compact, which would eliminate her voting bloc and most likely her seat in Congress, when FL-3 is totally reconfigured next year. Which is ironic, because Republicans also view the new law with disdain, seeing it as a plot to swing the redistricting advantage back to the Democrats. Sigh. Can’t we all just get along?
(Answer: NO!)



(5.) Illinois-17

Political scientists love to cite IL-17 as the prototypical gerrymandered district, and you are likely to see IL-17 used as the illustration in many academic treatises about redistricting. And we can see why here. Its shape has often been described as “a rabbit on a skateboard,” though to me it looks more like an embryonic ichneumon wasp with a pancreatic cyst.

We saw above how PA-12 was a gerrymandering blunder by the Republicans; IL-17 is the opposite, a gerrymandered district created by Democrats to ensure themselves a seat in western Illinois — but which this year was snatched from their grasp by Tea Party candidate and now congressman-elect Bobby Schilling. Ooops! The Democrats went out on a limb when drawing IL-17 — several limbs, by the looks of it — but the wave election of 2010 changed the electoral landscape. Let me repeat my warning to over-confident redistricters next year: THINGS CHANGE. Gerrymander at your own risk.


(4.) Florida-22

Florida-22 isn’t a congressional district: it’s series of random lines generated by a malfunctioning dot-matrix printer. What else could explain the sheer purposelessness of the innumerable jagged ins and outs of a district so thin that in a few places you could run across it in under a minute? All of this to achieve — what? A district that is almost perfectly balanced between Democrats and Republicans. Couldn’t the same result have been effected a little more simply, perhaps by circling some random part of a Florida map with a felt pen?

But all is forgiven, Florida-22, because on November 2 you elected as your representative Allen West MFC (My Favorite Congressman), quite obviously the next President of the United States.


(3.) Arizona-2


Arizona’s second district is the one most likely to make people burst out laughing. I mean, c’mon. And the explanation for this atrocity only makes it seem worse:

The odd shape of the district is indicative of the use of gerrymandering in its construction. The unusual division was not, however, drawn to favor politicians.

Owing to historic tensions between the Hopi and the Navajo Native American tribes and since tribal boundary disputes are a federal matter, it was thought inappropriate that both tribes should be represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by the same member. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, and in order to comply with current Arizona redistricting laws, some means of connection was required that avoided including large portions of Navajo land, hence the narrow riverine connection.

So, the district was drawn this way so that Hopis and Navajos don’t give each other “electoral cooties” by having to vote for the same congressman? What — is America now a 3rd-grade playground? Imagine how Republicans in Nancy Pelosi’s district feel, or Democrats in rural Texas. All across America people have to line up at polling places alongside people whom they despise.
Get over it!


(2.) Maryland-3

Maryland-3 is the poster child for the lunacy that is gerrymandering. And the funniest part? The Democratic politicians who created it deny that it’s gerrymandered at all:

The new district was concocted after the 2000 Census when Maryland, like all states, drew up new congressional and state legislative district boundaries to reflect changes in the population.

Former Secretary of State John T. Willis, who was in charge of the redistricting as chairman of the Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Committee, said the committee did not mean for the 3rd District to look like it does. That’s just how the numbers worked out, he said.

“It’s a very complex situation, and population is the No. 1 driving characteristic,” Willis said.

The final plan, Willis noted proudly, created eight congressional districts that had almost exactly the same number of people in them.

“All of our congressional districts don’t deviate by more than one person,” he said.
But Rascovar said that no matter how the committee “painted it”, the new boundaries were drawn to favor Democratic candidates in the 2nd District.

“They needed ‘x’ number of votes . . . what you end up doing is juggling these neighborhood votes, and it becomes absurd,” Rascovar said.

“The most absurd is that the politicians drawing up these districts are no longer concerned with the neighborhoods,” he said. “All they care is, ‘How many loyal Democrats can I get in this district?’ ”

Willis disagreed. Although the interests of incumbent representatives were taken into consideration, he said, no single district was favored.


(1.) Illinois-4

Here it is: The most ridiculous congressional district in the entire country. No, you’re not looking at two districts; IL-4 has two absurdly gerrymandered halves held together by a thin strip of land at its western edge that is nothing more than the median strip along Interstate Highway 294. The end result is a gerrymandered gerrymander, a complete mockery of what congressional representation is even supposed to be. As with AZ-2, the intention behind IL-4 was to create an ethnic enclave, in this case an Hispanic-majority district within an otherwise overwhelmingly non-Hispanic Chicago. Problem is, Chicago has two completely distinct and geographically separate Hispanic neighborhoods — one Puerto Rican, the other Mexican — but neither is large enough to constitute a district majority on its own. Solution? Lump all Hispanics together into a supposedly coherent cultural grouping, and then carefully draw a line surrounding every single Hispanic household in Chicago, linking the two distant neighborhoods by means of an uninhabited highway margin. Voila! One Hispanic congressperson, by design. And as a side-effect, the most preposterous congressional district in the United States.

But wait — our gerrymander tour isn’t over. If you think those ten were bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. While they may have indeed been the ten most gerrymandered districts in the nation, at least they shared something admirable in common: They were legal. The same cannot be said about our next ten districts, which may not be as crazily shaped as the ones above, but which are in one crucial aspect far worse: they’re noncontiguous.

The whole reason gerrymandering even exists as a practice in the first place is to overcome the requirement that each congressional district be contiguous — in other words, a unified single enclosed area, however strangely shaped it may be. This self-evident need to create contiguous districts is the whole reason why gerrymandered district boundaries wander all over the landscape, so as to enclose certain sought-after voters while still keeping them geographically connected to the rest of the district. Without the requirement to have each district be contiguous, politicians could easily have created a new level of fantasmagorial gerrymandering in which demographic groupings are enclosed without any regard to where they might be located on a map, forging “districts” out of disconnected topological islands.

Thank heavens that can never happen, right? Right?

Wrong.

The politicians in charge of redistricting are so brazen in some states that they seem to have gotten drunk on gerrymander wine, tossing caution to the wind and cavalierly creating noncontiguous congressional districts with portions completely cut off from the rest of the voters. How in the world they got away with this, I have no idea — apparently, if you have the hubris to create gerrymandered districts in the first place, it’s not so big a step to cross the invisible boundary between unethical and illegal.

That said, I am unaware of any federal law stipulating that districts be contiguous; it seems to be legislated on a state-by-state basis. And it could very well be that certain states intentionally fail to pass or enforce such a law, if it serves a political purpose to violate it. After all, who’s going to prosecute the redistricters? Themselves?

If this trend continues, perhaps the time has come to enact nationwide guidelines expressly prohibiting noncontiguous congressional districts.


View Larger Map


Sources: Pajamas Media, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps