State Legislature Redistricting

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The Illinois maps are on their way to the Governor's desk.

[BigSkyBob]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

[Dan the Roman]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

Any Federal Judge stupid enough to try to enforce that would find themselves smacked down by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to enforce a legal receivership against a state would run smack into a Constitutional Crisis on a scale not seen since the civil war, especially if the state ordered employees not to comply with instructions from the court.

If the overseer tried to fire them you would end up with thousands of lawsuits many targeted at the overseer personally, including ones filed in a sure to be highly hostile state courts.

Even assuming the overseer won out, as soon as the state passed out of receivership you would end up with a collosal mess as the voters would promptly send in a state government of the opinion that the whole exercise had been illegal and everything implemented void.

Basically no sane Judge would ever order it, and no sane individual would ever take the job of overseer. This is not to say that someone motivated out of ambition or sheer malevolence would not, but I suspect you would end up with a poorly qualified ideologue since no one else would take the job. And that would further guarantee disaster.

[BigSkyBob]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

Any Federal Judge stupid enough to try to enforce that would find themselves smacked down by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to enforce a legal receivership against a state would run smack into a Constitutional Crisis on a scale not seen since the civil war, especially if the state ordered employees not to comply with instructions from the court.

If the overseer tried to fire them you would end up with thousands of lawsuits many targeted at the overseer personally, including ones filed in a sure to be highly hostile state courts.

Even assuming the overseer won out, as soon as the state passed out of receivership you would end up with a collosal mess as the voters would promptly send in a state government of the opinion that the whole exercise had been illegal and everything implemented void.

Basically no sane Judge would ever order it, and no sane individual would ever take the job of overseer. This is not to say that someone motivated out of ambition or sheer malevolence would not, but I suspect you would end up with a poorly qualified ideologue since no one else would take the job. And that would further guarantee disaster.

Here is a reality check: bankruptcy exists to balance the needs of debtors and creditors in a way that is considered  fair and just. Claiming "state sovereignty" aren't going to go very far. Creditors have the right to recovery, and that is especially true of the pleged collateral, which for a general obligation bond is the future stream of tax revenue.

So, yes, a federal bankruptcy judge will take the case because it is his job.

[Dan the Roman]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

Any Federal Judge stupid enough to try to enforce that would find themselves smacked down by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to enforce a legal receivership against a state would run smack into a Constitutional Crisis on a scale not seen since the civil war, especially if the state ordered employees not to comply with instructions from the court.

If the overseer tried to fire them you would end up with thousands of lawsuits many targeted at the overseer personally, including ones filed in a sure to be highly hostile state courts.

Even assuming the overseer won out, as soon as the state passed out of receivership you would end up with a collosal mess as the voters would promptly send in a state government of the opinion that the whole exercise had been illegal and everything implemented void.

Basically no sane Judge would ever order it, and no sane individual would ever take the job of overseer. This is not to say that someone motivated out of ambition or sheer malevolence would not, but I suspect you would end up with a poorly qualified ideologue since no one else would take the job. And that would further guarantee disaster.

Here is a reality check: bankruptcy exists to balance the needs of debtors and creditors in a way that is considered  fair and just. Claiming "state sovereignty" aren't going to go very far. Creditors have the right to recovery, and that is especially true of the pleged collateral, which for a general obligation bond is the future stream of tax revenue.

So, yes, a federal bankruptcy judge will take the case because it is his job.

US Judicial Theory recognizes the concept of "Political Questions" which can not be resolved through a simple appeal to the legal basis of the situation but must take into account the political nature of a case as well. A state declaring bankruptcy would be a "Political Question" because while a federal bankruptcy judge could try and claim that it was simply an issue issue of finances and bankruptcy laws, it really wouldn't be.

Federals laws don't trump the constitution or requirement that all states have a "republican form of government" for instance. And again, I ask, how would a federal bankruptcy judge enforce any of his decisions if the state courts and the executive branch both declined to enforce any of his/her rulings? What if he was charged with trumped up crime in a state court and sent to prison?

[BigSkyBob]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

Any Federal Judge stupid enough to try to enforce that would find themselves smacked down by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to enforce a legal receivership against a state would run smack into a Constitutional Crisis on a scale not seen since the civil war, especially if the state ordered employees not to comply with instructions from the court.

If the overseer tried to fire them you would end up with thousands of lawsuits many targeted at the overseer personally, including ones filed in a sure to be highly hostile state courts.

Even assuming the overseer won out, as soon as the state passed out of receivership you would end up with a collosal mess as the voters would promptly send in a state government of the opinion that the whole exercise had been illegal and everything implemented void.

Basically no sane Judge would ever order it, and no sane individual would ever take the job of overseer. This is not to say that someone motivated out of ambition or sheer malevolence would not, but I suspect you would end up with a poorly qualified ideologue since no one else would take the job. And that would further guarantee disaster.

Here is a reality check: bankruptcy exists to balance the needs of debtors and creditors in a way that is considered  fair and just. Claiming "state sovereignty" aren't going to go very far. Creditors have the right to recovery, and that is especially true of the pleged collateral, which for a general obligation bond is the future stream of tax revenue.

So, yes, a federal bankruptcy judge will take the case because it is his job.

US Judicial Theory recognizes the concept of "Political Questions" which can not be resolved through a simple appeal to the legal basis of the situation but must take into account the political nature of a case as well. A state declaring bankruptcy would be a "Political Question" because while a federal bankruptcy judge could try and claim that it was simply an issue issue of finances and bankruptcy laws, it really wouldn't be.

There is a fundamental contradiction between claiming that the "political question" can be taken into account, and your claim that a bankruptcy judge cannot take the case and balance out the "political question" with every other financial question.

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question" that amount to, "On the political question, if you rule Illinois can stiff its creditors with impunity, you are not only freezing Illinois out of the credit market, but, you are freezing out us as well."

Federals laws don't trump the constitution or requirement that all states have a "republican form of government" for instance. And again, I ask, how would a federal bankruptcy judge enforce any of his decisions if the state courts and the executive branch both declined to enforce any of his/her rulings? What if he was charged with trumped up crime in a state court and sent to prison?

The system of bankruptcy is in the Federal Constitution which is not bound by State Constitutions.

[krazen1211]

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110601/NEWS02/106010350/Democrats-diluting-black-vote-data-show?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

Oops, they did it again.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Gee you mean the Democrats would rather have blacks spread out into more seats thus increasing the Democratic vote in many districts rather than just pack blacks and thus Democratic votes into a few districts therefore making neighboring seats more Republican? What a shocker!

[krazen1211]

Gee you mean the Democrats would rather have blacks spread out into more seats thus increasing the Democratic vote in many districts rather than just pack blacks and thus Democratic votes into a few districts therefore making neighboring seats more Republican? What a shocker!

It's merely a lesson learned in tactics. Delaware Democrats show us how to ramp up the count of blacks up to 67% or so as of the last redistricting. Others have taken heed.

[cinyc]

Alaska's map has been released:

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2011/06/07/18/13/ez7t.So.7.pdf

As expected, the Southeast panhandle is down to 4 house districts.  Petersburg was split from Wrangell and placed in a district with Democratic-leaning downtown Juneau.  The bush was split into 5-6 districts (depending on how one defines it), with one district stretching all the from the Bering Sea way to suburban areas of Fairbanks.  All are high-numbered districts.  The old huge interior bush house district 6 was split up, with the bulk of the population put in HD-39 with Nome.  That district now stretches from Nome to the Canadian border.   Some Senate districts, which make up two consecutively numbered house districts (i.e. 1+2=SD-A, 3+4=SD-B, etc.) might not be strictly contiguous in some places.

The redistricting panel didn't seem to care much about incumbents.  Some incumbents were put in districts together.

More here:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/06/1902638/panel-approves-new-district-boundaries.html

[krazen1211]

South Carolina to go for a veto-proof majority.

http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11860706111392099

One apparent strategy is to consolidate Democratic districts together, thus pushing one Democratic senator out. For instance, the plan would put Camden Democratic Sen. Vincent Sheheen in the same district as Fairfield County Democrat Creighton Coleman.

Richland County Democratic Sen. Joel Lourie’s district would get squished into Lexington Democrat Nikki Setzler’s.

[cinyc]

A revised, renumbered Alaska map is here, which takes away a lot of the non-contiguity in Senate districts.

http://www.akredistricting.org/Files/Board%20Adopted%20Final%20Draft/Statewide.pdf

Numbering starts in Fairbanks and spirals southward toward Anchorage, then the panhandle, then the bush.  The Bristol district is smaller and takes in the far Aleutians, which were split.

Incumbents are mad about this plan, particularly Democrats, who think they are most harmed by it.  The redistricting panel was made up of 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat - though the vote for the map was unanimous.  The main arguments against the plan are geographic, not respecting borough boundaries and the like.  A prior Aleutian split wasn't allowed by a court and the Mat-Su Valley supposedly only has 4 seats instead of 5 - though a fifth is largely Mat-Su.

http://www.adn.com/2011/06/07/1904650/redistricting-plan-called-flawed.html

The panel really didn't care at all about where incumbents lived when drafting it, which, in my opinion, is the way redistricting ought to be.

[Bacon King]

Is the GOP in the Alaska legislature still split/factionalized? If so, with the map apparently bad for the Democrats, how does it fare for the pro-coalition Republicans?

[Vasall des Midas]

The bush was split into 5-6 districts (depending on how one defines it), with one district stretching all the from the Bering Sea way to suburban areas of Fairbanks.  All are high-numbered districts.  The old huge interior bush house district 6 was split up, with the bulk of the population put in HD-39 with Nome.  That district now stretches from Nome to the Canadian border.  

Arguably more like they added Nome to the old 6th, removed the southwestern prong instead, and renumbered it the 39th.

Numbering starts in Fairbanks and spirals southward toward Anchorage, then the panhandle, then the bush.

Why renumber? I don't get that, but whatever...

The Bristol district is smaller and takes in the far Aleutians, which were split.

You mean Bethel.

Fairbanks looks ugly and gerrymandered (though I'd have to compare closely with precincts maps to see if it actually is... and even then only in the Senate map.) Haven't looked at Anchorage yet, though what I hear about merging Eagle Pass and parts of downtown Anchorage sounds ugly.

[cinyc]

Is the GOP in the Alaska legislature still split/factionalized? If so, with the map apparently bad for the Democrats, how does it fare for the pro-coalition Republicans?

Yes, the Alaska GOP is still split, at least in the Alaska State Senate.  

I guess how pro-coalition Republicans fare depends on how many Senate seats the GOP holds after elections.  If it's just barely a majority, the coalition may live.  If not, coalition Republicans might work within the party.  The Alaska Senate is currently 10-10 Republican-Democrat and 16-4 coalition.  The Alaska House is 24-16 Republican, with some of the 16 Democrats in a coalition with all but 2 Republicans - though they are not strictly needed for a majority in the caucus.

[ag]

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question"

I would find it a lot more amazing if the other 49 states AND the federal government wouldn't side w/ the state of Illinois )

Not to say that I believe an actual default by the state is likely - at least by a state that has amply demonstrated political willingness to raise taxes. I would, honestly, be a lot more concerned about, say, the state of Texas )

[BigSkyBob]

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question"

I would find it a lot more amazing if the other 49 states AND the federal government wouldn't side w/ the state of Illinois )

Not to say that I believe an actual default by the state is likely - at least by a state that has amply demonstrated political willingness to raise taxes. I would, honestly, be a lot more concerned about, say, the state of Texas )

Why do claim that states that pay their bills would side with the position that the alleged collateral that allows them to obtain significantly lower rates than unsecured credit isn't collectable?

[Dan the Roman]

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question"

I would find it a lot more amazing if the other 49 states AND the federal government wouldn't side w/ the state of Illinois )

Not to say that I believe an actual default by the state is likely - at least by a state that has amply demonstrated political willingness to raise taxes. I would, honestly, be a lot more concerned about, say, the state of Texas )

Why do claim that states that pay their bills would side with the position that the alleged collateral that allows them to obtain significantly lower rates than unsecured credit isn't collectable?

Because briefs are filed not by states but by elected politicians, and the precedence set by a federal court overthrowing a locally elected state government is not something any of them would sign on to. Every elected official in the country would have a personal incentive to kill the proposal.

Also, what exactly do you think the impact on the Federal Health Care lawsuit would be if this were upheld? Wouldn't this pretty thoroughly gut the arguments of the states that are parties to the suit?

[BigSkyBob]

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question"

I would find it a lot more amazing if the other 49 states AND the federal government wouldn't side w/ the state of Illinois )

Not to say that I believe an actual default by the state is likely - at least by a state that has amply demonstrated political willingness to raise taxes. I would, honestly, be a lot more concerned about, say, the state of Texas )

Why do claim that states that pay their bills would side with the position that the alleged collateral that allows them to obtain significantly lower rates than unsecured credit isn't collectable?

Because briefs are filed not by states but by elected politicians, and the precedence set by a federal court overthrowing a locally elected state government is not something any of them would sign on to.

It is a simple question of whether, or not, the rest of the state what their GOB treated as secured, or unsecured, debt. Elected politicians understand the consequences of being frozen out of the credit market as much as anyone else. Supporting the notion that the pledged collateral is forfeited in default is not "overthrowing" a government.  That same government freely chose to pledge the collateral, and is bound by that decision. They certainly took the benefits of pledging collateral, namely significantly lower rates.

Every elected official in the country would have a personal incentive to kill the proposal.

Also, what exactly do you think the impact on the Federal Health Care lawsuit would be if this were upheld? Wouldn't this pretty thoroughly gut the arguments of the states that are parties to the suit?

[BigSkyBob]

http://media.mlive.com/elections_impact/photo/senate-statewide-newjpg-0b52e03e92c3102b.jpg

Proposed State Senate map reveiled.

[ilikeverin]

http://media.mlive.com/elections_impact/photo/senate-statewide-newjpg-0b52e03e92c3102b.jpg

Proposed State Senate map reveiled.

Do I see touchpoint continuity with the 14th district?  Blargh.

[krazen1211]

Gee you mean the Democrats would rather have blacks spread out into more seats thus increasing the Democratic vote in many districts rather than just pack blacks and thus Democratic votes into a few districts therefore making neighboring seats more Republican? What a shocker!

It's merely a lesson learned in tactics. Delaware Democrats show us how to ramp up the count of blacks up to 67% or so as of the last redistricting. Others have taken heed.

I correct myself. They actually packed the 1 black represented district up to 68% to limit blacks to 1 district out of 21.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110615/NEWS02/106150363/Delaware-Black-Caucus-rips-Democratic-party-leaders-over-proposed-boundaries


It's OK if you're a Democrat!

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Still, the House Democrats' plan dilutes the black population in four Wilmington and New Castle-area districts -- the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 16th -- in order to maintain a majority of minorities.

Oh so the complaint is that the districts aren't gerrymandered to be majority black and have a bunch of Hispanics too?

The Delaware Black Caucus proposed creating additional majority-minority House districts by drawing black neighborhoods in Dover and the Bear and Christiana areas together.

Uh...go look at a map and take note of what this type of district would look like.

It sounds like the Democrats are actually just doing what Republicans on this forum screaming against the VRA frequently call for, just drawing compact districts based on neighborhoods and ignoring racial figures. But krazen just wants an excuse to scream about how those evil evil white liberals are really extreme racists and want to screw over blacks for no discernible reason whatsoever (basically his standard logic in a post like this.)

[krazen1211]

Still, the House Democrats' plan dilutes the black population in four Wilmington and New Castle-area districts -- the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 16th -- in order to maintain a majority of minorities.

Oh so the complaint is that the districts aren't gerrymandered to be majority black and have a bunch of Hispanics too?

The Delaware Black Caucus proposed creating additional majority-minority House districts by drawing black neighborhoods in Dover and the Bear and Christiana areas together.

Uh...go look at a map and take note of what this type of district would look like.

It sounds like the Democrats are actually just doing what Republicans on this forum screaming against the VRA frequently call for, just drawing compact districts based on neighborhoods and ignoring racial figures. But krazen just wants an excuse to scream about how those evil evil white liberals are really extreme racists and want to screw over blacks for no discernible reason whatsoever (basically his standard logic in a post like this.)

That's not the case at all. Else, Wilmington would be in 2 Senate districts, not 3, especially given the Democrats' typical systematic underpopulation of their districts under the 10% rule.

The reason to both quite discernible and obvious. Packing blacks up to 68% is done to ensure the surrounding districts elect whites. The only difference is that white liberals from other states selectively cry about it.


Here's the house map too. They did an exemplary job in making sure none of the Dover districts had a plurality of blacks.

http://legis.delaware.gov/legislature.nsf/1688f230b96d580f85256ae20071717e/afdf2ea2da07d72e85257893006a10c0/$FILE/Statewide%20(Proposed).pdf

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

No that's not discernible because there's no advantage to electing white Democrats as opposed to black Democrats. And "packing" Wilmington makes sense simply because Wilmington is one city and there's no reason to carve it up into a million pieces just because that might give another district a better chance of electing a black. If Wilmington can fit into two districts, then why should it be cut into three?

I can't figure out a way to draw a plurality black VAP seat in Dover. The best I can get is 45% white to 43.9% black VAP, it's plurality black in total population but that number isn't taken into account. Why it's split three ways is rather obvious, since Dover is the only town in the area that votes for Democrats, it makes more sense to split it and get three districts capable of electing Democrats instead of one.

Obvious retort:

"Oh but wait BRTD that completely contradicts what you said above! You said towns shouldn't be split if they don't have to be!"

Looking at things from a perspective of fair redistricting like in Iowa, yes. That's not happening here so the Democrats are simply drawing things to their partisan interest like any party in control in any state does. Is this a good thing? Of course not, but for any party to claim a moral high ground is ridiculous. In this instance the Democrats are splitting up an area when it benefits them politically, and keeping it compact if the entire area is Democratic and there is no reason to split it up. Is this consistent? Of course not, but the reason for the inconsistency is obvious, and it's not that all white liberals have an extreme hatred for blacks (which is pretty hilarious to claim considering the millions of white liberals who voted for Obama over Hillary.)