State Legislature Redistricting

[Dan the Roman]

Here's the revised Virginia Senate map:

http://redistricting.dls.virginia.gov/2010/RedistrictingPlans.aspx#26

Basically caps the Democrats at 22 seats (the Republican-held 10th would be competitive if it were open, but not as long as the incumbent remains in it), so they can afford to lose one seat at most. Good job, Senate Dems. The major changes: the second seat in Virginia Beach is restored, a new district is created east of Lynchburg (the 22nd), and there's a new district in Loudoun (the 13th).
[/quote

Looks like 19 or so Safe D seats. The final three will be tougher.

[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.

[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?

[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?