2018: Should the position on gerrymandering be heavily questioned by the media?

[Kingpoleon]

This question should dog every candidate who reaches the general, besides Sununu and Scott.

[Virginiá]

Of course it should. But given that this is only about lawmakers using their power to suppress their political opponents, it will probably only receive token coverage. Especially if Trump somehow gets his twitter account back for the midterm.

[Figueira]

This question should dog every candidate who reaches the general, besides Sununu and Scott.

Why single out those two?

[publicunofficial]

This question should dog every candidate who reaches the general, besides Sununu and Scott.

Why single out those two?

I'm guessing Napoleon's logic is Florida has a "Fair Redistricting" law (That Republicans ignored and got away with for 2 cycles), and Sununu will be up for election again in 2020 and gerrymandering questions should be saved till then.

Of course the answer is that gerrymandering is too nerdy and unsexy of an issue for the media to pay attention to. Takes too much time to explain, doesn't make for a good clickable headline.

[Figueira]

This question should dog every candidate who reaches the general, besides Sununu and Scott.

Why single out those two?

I'm guessing Napoleon's logic is Florida has a "Fair Redistricting" law (That Republicans ignored and got away with for 2 cycles), and Sununu will be up for election again in 2020 and gerrymandering questions should be saved till then.

Of course the answer is that gerrymandering is too nerdy and unsexy of an issue for the media to pay attention to. Takes too much time to explain, doesn't make for a good clickable headline.

I think he meant Phil Scott, and yeah, the 2020 thing makes sense.

[Kingpoleon]

This question should dog every candidate who reaches the general, besides Sununu and Scott.

Why single out those two?

Phil Scott and Chris Sununu would be up again in 2020.

[Orser67]

Yeah, it should be an issue.

The gov actually plays no role in redistricting in CT, FL, MD, MS, and NC.

Edited MI to MS

[Orser67]

Whoops, I meant to say the MS governor, not the MI governor.

In MD, Hogan could veto a Dem map and sustain it if the Dems fall below 60%.  That is possible if unlikely in the lower chamber.  CT and ME require a 2/3rds majority to pass a map, so the governor is essentially irrelevant as that is also the veto override threshold.  FL-GOV and MI-GOV actually matter a great deal as their state anti-gerrymandering laws are very open to interpretation.  Note also that KY, WV, AR, and TN all have simple majority veto override for all laws, so Yarmuth and Cooper are likely toast after 2020 (the TN GOP declined to split Nashville last time for fear of electing 2 Blue Dogs, that will not be a concern going forward). 

Thanks for the info about KY, WV, AR, and TN.

I thought that in MD both maps were passed by a joint resolution? Is there some sort of filibuster type thing in the lower chamber?

And what role does the FL governor have in interpreting anti-gerrymandering laws?

[Virginiá]

I thought that in MD both maps were passed by a joint resolution? Is there some sort of filibuster type thing in the lower chamber?

And what role does the FL governor have in interpreting anti-gerrymandering laws?

Maryland, like Florida, passes legislative maps by joint resolution, which is not subject to veto. However, the Congressional map is.

As for FL, whoever the next Governor is will be replacing 3 FLSC justices that are facing mandatory retirement in 2019. All of these justices happen to be Lawton appointees, aka votes crucial to overturning gerrymandered maps. An all-Republican bench would be more likely than not (imo) to defer to the legislature's "fixes", and possibly be prone to shooting down gerrymandering lawsuits entirely.

This has always been the weak spot for the Fair Districts amendments. Democrats would be wise to get initiatives for commissions on the ballot prior to the next round of redistricting.

[muon2]

It was a position heavily questioned by the media in IL this last cycle and probably will be next cycle as well. The petition drive for a constitutional amendment that was rejected along party lines by the IL SC was fuel for the media questioning this year. The topic remains high on Rauner's agenda and the advocates will probably make another try at a petition drive. I expect Rauner will be campaigning on it in 2018, so it will be a point of focus for media questions again here.

[mencken]

It would be less of a problem if federal law did not mandate that underrepresented minorities^TM had to have their own safe spaces qua congressional districts.

[muon2]

It would be less of a problem if federal law did not mandate that underrepresented minorities^TM had to have their own safe spaces qua congressional districts.

If Dems hadn't used minorities to maximize their seats without giving some of those seats to the minorities there wouldn't be the federal law. When I saw some of the DKos maps in the last cycle, it looks like there are still many partisans who would return to that style of redistricting if given the chance. As long as there is bloc voting based on race or ethnicity it will remain an issue due to the 15th Amendment, particularly given SCOTUS interpretation that the rights are not merely to cast a vote but to be able to elect representatives of their choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.