Rigging elections

[question everything]

The hidden scandal of redistricting

By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
May 23, 2004


Last month the Supreme Court issued a decision with little fanfare that may have more impact on your representation in the U.S. Congress than any single event over the past decade. In Vieth v. Jubilirer, the Court upheld Pennsylvania's congressional redistricting plan despite all justices agreeing it was a partisan gerrymander.

(snip)

The redistricting plan typically is passed like any legislative bill, by a majority in both houses and signed by the governor. And whichever political party controls the line-drawing process in their state has the godlike power to guarantee themselves majority control and to decide who will win most races. They rely on techniques with names like "acking" and "cracking": packing as many of your opponent's voters into as few districts as possible, sacrificing those districts but making all the surrounding districts more favorable to your side; or "cracking" an opponent's voters into different districts, dividing and conquering as you go.

Does redistricting make a difference? You bet it does. Virginia Democrats in 2001 won their first statewide race for governor since 1989. But Republicans went from barely controlling the statehouse to a two-thirds' majority. How? That's right – for the first time since Reconstruction, Republicans had been able to draw the district lines before the election. In Florida, Democrats are strong enough to hold both U.S. Senate seats and gain a virtual tie in the presidential race. But with full control of rigging the district lines, Republicans hold an overwhelming 18 of 25 U.S. House seats. In 2002, Maryland Democrats picked up two of the state's Republican's four U.S. House seats as a direct result of partisan redistricting.

(snip)


Led by House Majority Leader DeLay, Republicans last year brought the blood sport of redistricting to new lows by spurring Texas and Colorado to gerrymander congressional districts mid-decade. While Colorado's Supreme Court tossed out the state's plan, the Texas plan – and with it potentially a Republican pick-up of seven seats – won approval. If the Supreme Court accepts the Texas plan, we could see incumbent legislators fine-tuning their districts after every election.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040523/news_lz1e23hill.html

[Eric J in MN]

1. My Blog entry on gerrymandering

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Pennsylvania can gerrymander its US Congressional districts to favor Republicans (“Vieth v. Jubelirer.”)

The same justices who voted against state’s rights to stop Florida from recounting votes for Gore and Bush, voted for state’s rights when it came to gerrymandering Pennsylvania to favor Republicans in the House.

It’s almost as if state’s rights is just an excuse for consolidating Republican power by means fair or foul.

READ MORE at MOVELEFT.COM

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_04_29_congressional_gerrymandering_veith.asp

[Moderator]

2. question everything

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator