What is the deal with GOP states being able to gerrymander county governments?

[Mr.Phips]

It happened in Marion county, Indiana and now in Wake county, North Carolina.  Isnt it the local county governments that are in charge of this line drawing? 

This would be like if Obama and the Democratic Congress in 2009 went into every state and drew the Congressional and state legislative lines to their liking.

There is federal government, state government, and municipal/county government.  Each one has their own jurisdiction over how lines are drawn. 

[krazen1211]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

[Mr.Phips]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

[DrScholl]

In those places, local authorities don't handle redistricting, which is odd, but that's how it is. Technically, the federal government could draw federal lines, since it falls under their jurisdiction. but that power has been left to the states.

[Mr.Phips]

In those places, local authorities don't handle redistricting, which is odd, but that's how it is. Technically, the federal government could draw federal lines, but that power has been left to the states.

Very, very odd.  Just doesnt seem right. 

[krazen1211]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

[Mr.Phips]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

But does it allow states to trample on the rights of local municipalities?

[Bacon King]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

But does it allow states to trample on the rights of local municipalities?

Municipalities (besides DC) are exclusively the creation of state governments and are governed by a state's constitution and laws. Legally, city and county governments only have independent authority insofar as their state has allowed them to have it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Municipalities (besides DC) are exclusively the creation of state governments

That's not actually true, but is the lie by which local government has been (successfully, for the most part) kept in check in the U.S.

[Benj]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

It's quite clear that Congress can draw congressional boundaries, though they have never done so. I agree that it is equally clear that they could not draw state legislative boundaries (or take other actions, like abolishing/combining/creating new counties or municipalities).

[Brittain33]

Municipalities (besides DC) are exclusively the creation of state governments

That's not actually true, but is the lie by which local government has been (successfully, for the most part) kept in check in the U.S.

Can you describe in what way it's not true?

[muon2]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

Congress could pass a law dictating the manner of drawing Congressional lines, much as they eliminated multi-member and at large districts in states with more than one congressman in 1967. Even for state and local districts they were able to impose some requirements through the VRA.

[muon2]

Municipalities (besides DC) are exclusively the creation of state governments

That's not actually true, but is the lie by which local government has been (successfully, for the most part) kept in check in the U.S.

Can you describe in what way it's not true?

Indeed, in IL the constitution provides limited powers for most local government and assigns the bulk of the control over local government to the state. Some local governments are given home rule powers, but even then the constitution allows the state to curtail much of that authority with a supermajority vote.

[Torie]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

Congress could pass a law dictating the manner of drawing Congressional lines, much as they eliminated multi-member and at large districts in states with more than one congressman in 1967. Even for state and local districts they were able to impose some requirements through the VRA.

Except that the VRA is entwined in a murky and confused manner with US Constitutional issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

You need to pay more attention to what you write and quote.  When it comes to Congressional elections, Congress has considerable power, when it comes to state elections, it only has power insofar as it can demonstrate that it is acting to preserve voting rights.  Perhaps the clearest Supreme Court case demonstrating that is Oregon v. Mitchell which dealt with challenges to the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.  Amongst other things, it established that Congress could set a uniform minimum voting age for national elections, but not for state and local elections.

[krazen1211]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

You need to pay more attention to what you write and quote.  When it comes to Congressional elections, Congress has considerable power, when it comes to state elections, it only has power insofar as it can demonstrate that it is acting to preserve voting rights.  Perhaps the clearest Supreme Court case demonstrating that is Oregon v. Mitchell which dealt with challenges to the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.  Amongst other things, it established that Congress could set a uniform minimum voting age for national elections, but not for state and local elections.

The documented intent of the clause, from the Federalist Papers was to prevent rogue state legislatures from wrecking havoc on the Union, particularly with regards to the House moreso than the Senate. Local regulation of elections was considered more satisfactory in usual cases.


A heavily selective redrawing of the lines of only certain Congressional districts would be subject to a certain court challenge, especially when that legislature of that has not engaged in malicious conduct of any sort. Federalism has a stronger basis in the courts today than it did 40 years ago.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Too bad about that pesky Constitution, eh?

Where does it say that?

Article I does not permit congress to trample on state's rights and draw congressional and state legislative lines.

At most, the following powers are enumerated.


The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.




The lines in any case would have become obsolete in 2010.

You need to pay more attention to what you write and quote.  When it comes to Congressional elections, Congress has considerable power, when it comes to state elections, it only has power insofar as it can demonstrate that it is acting to preserve voting rights.  Perhaps the clearest Supreme Court case demonstrating that is Oregon v. Mitchell which dealt with challenges to the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.  Amongst other things, it established that Congress could set a uniform minimum voting age for national elections, but not for state and local elections.

The documented intent of the clause, from the Federalist Papers was to prevent rogue state legislatures from wrecking havoc on the Union, particularly with regards to the House moreso than the Senate. Local regulation of elections was considered more satisfactory in usual cases.


A heavily selective redrawing of the lines of only certain Congressional districts would be subject to a certain court challenge, especially when that legislature of that has not engaged in malicious conduct of any sort. Federalism has a stronger basis in the courts today than it did 40 years ago.

You're the only person here who has proposed that the Congress might actually try to gerrymander selected States.  It's fascinating that you've built a strawman out of people pointing out such an effort would be as absurd as the actual gerrymandering that some states are doing for local government elections.  However, it certainly would be within Congress' remit to enact specific guidelines for redistricting, require the use of non-partisan redistricting commissions, or other general rules for congressional redistricting that would apply to all of the states.

[jimrtex]

Perhaps the clearest Supreme Court case demonstrating that is Oregon v. Mitchell which dealt with challenges to the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.  Amongst other things, it established that Congress could set a uniform minimum voting age for national elections, but not for state and local elections.

The decision in Oregon v Mitchell is not clear at all.

Four justices said that Congress could set an 18 year old voting age; and some suggested that had a lawsuit been brought before them, they would have decreed an 18 year old voting age by judicial fiat.

One justice said that Congress could make up qualifications for congressional elections, notwithstanding explicit language in the Constitution that voter qualification for congressional elections is derivative from state qualifications.  He made up that there is anything about presidential elections at all.

The precedent set is that 1+4 > 4

[jimrtex]

It happened in Marion county, Indiana and now in Wake county, North Carolina.  Isnt it the local county governments that are in charge of this line drawing? 

This would be like if Obama and the Democratic Congress in 2009 went into every state and drew the Congressional and state legislative lines to their liking.

There is federal government, state government, and municipal/county government.  Each one has their own jurisdiction over how lines are drawn. 

The state does redistricting of county commissions in Maine.

[minionofmidas]

Municipalities (besides DC) are exclusively the creation of state governments

That's not actually true, but is the lie by which local government has been (successfully, for the most part) kept in check in the U.S.

It is literally true across the parts of the US settled after the late 18th century. Those poor enthralled people do not have any ancient freedoms, Al.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps the clearest Supreme Court case demonstrating that is Oregon v. Mitchell which dealt with challenges to the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.  Amongst other things, it established that Congress could set a uniform minimum voting age for national elections, but not for state and local elections.

The decision in Oregon v Mitchell is not clear at all.

Four justices said that Congress could set an 18 year old voting age; and some suggested that had a lawsuit been brought before them, they would have decreed an 18 year old voting age by judicial fiat.

One justice said that Congress could make up qualifications for congressional elections, notwithstanding explicit language in the Constitution that voter qualification for congressional elections is derivative from state qualifications.  He made up that there is anything about presidential elections at all.

The precedent set is that 1+4 > 4

So they disagreed on the reasoning.  They still agreed on the effect.