Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 13, 2019, 08:50:24 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Gass3268, Virginia)
  North Carolina GOP (The Gift That Keeps On Giving): NCGOP Chair Indicted
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 Print
Author Topic: North Carolina GOP (The Gift That Keeps On Giving): NCGOP Chair Indicted  (Read 20581 times)
Deluded retread Vice Chair LFROMNJ
lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,260


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2018, 11:29:15 pm »

NC doesn't allow initiative or referendum.



The governor can't veto the map.

Is there any way at all to end Republicans' gerrymandering?

how tf don't MN and WI two states with large amounts of progressive and #populist not allow referendums?
Logged
Ebsy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: December 05, 2018, 03:13:50 am »

NC GOP Trying Again To Cement Control Of Local Elections Boards During Election Years

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nc-gop-trying-again-to-cement-control-of-local-elections-boards-during-election-years

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically, the GOP gets to hold a majority on county election boards when there is a major election, and Democrats can chair when it's nothing but local elections. Sounds very fair and definitely not a power grab meant to deny early voting to Democratic counties!

They just can't stop trying to seize control of election boards. Their desperation stinks.
Democrats should en masse change their registrations in order to thwart this.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,369
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: December 05, 2018, 07:36:27 am »

NC doesn't allow initiative or referendum.



The governor can't veto the map.

Is there any way at all to end Republicans' gerrymandering?

State Supreme Court is now 5-2 in favor of the Democrats, so a Pennsylvania style lawsuit.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,690


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: December 05, 2018, 07:55:30 am »
« Edited: December 05, 2018, 08:08:19 am by StateBoiler »

As a person born in North Carolina and lived there til I was 30, the hand-wringing over North Carolina Republicans by the Democrats, a party that ran the state pretty much consecutively from the end of Reconstruction 130 or so years onward, is amusing. It's one corrupt party telling the other party "you're corrupt". Sorry, I actually took a class on North Carolina history.

"We are out of power now, let's go find religion and be for no gerrymandering and other things in elections to ensure wins that we did for more than a century."

For the record as a person that used to live G.K. Butterfield's district, I'll support anti-gerrymandering laws that ban districts purposefully drawn for demographic reasons, which is currently required for North Carolina by federal law. Do Democrats not realize that districts like the 1st which are used to elect African-Americans make them weaker everywhere else? Also, what a gerrymander is needs to be absolutely defined, because I've seen the term used in conflicting circumstances by different commentators to further their respective arguments.
Logged
Eastern Kentucky Demosaur fighting the long defeat
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,057


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: December 05, 2018, 12:21:21 pm »

As a person born in North Carolina and lived there til I was 30, the hand-wringing over North Carolina Republicans by the Democrats, a party that ran the state pretty much consecutively from the end of Reconstruction 130 or so years onward, is amusing. It's one corrupt party telling the other party "you're corrupt". Sorry, I actually took a class on North Carolina history.

"We are out of power now, let's go find religion and be for no gerrymandering and other things in elections to ensure wins that we did for more than a century."

Galaxy brain: Singapore-style nominally-democratic regime-building isn't acceptable when either party does it.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,369
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: December 05, 2018, 12:49:37 pm »

As a person born in North Carolina and lived there til I was 30, the hand-wringing over North Carolina Republicans by the Democrats, a party that ran the state pretty much consecutively from the end of Reconstruction 130 or so years onward, is amusing. It's one corrupt party telling the other party "you're corrupt". Sorry, I actually took a class on North Carolina history.

"We are out of power now, let's go find religion and be for no gerrymandering and other things in elections to ensure wins that we did for more than a century."

For the record as a person that used to live G.K. Butterfield's district, I'll support anti-gerrymandering laws that ban districts purposefully drawn for demographic reasons, which is currently required for North Carolina by federal law. Do Democrats not realize that districts like the 1st which are used to elect African-Americans make them weaker everywhere else? Also, what a gerrymander is needs to be absolutely defined, because I've seen the term used in conflicting circumstances by different commentators to further their respective arguments.

Luckily the Democrats have a large NCSC majority now and can clean up the mess.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,115


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: December 05, 2018, 03:58:23 pm »

As a person born in North Carolina and lived there til I was 30, the hand-wringing over North Carolina Republicans by the Democrats, a party that ran the state pretty much consecutively from the end of Reconstruction 130 or so years onward, is amusing. It's one corrupt party telling the other party "you're corrupt". Sorry, I actually took a class on North Carolina history.

"We are out of power now, let's go find religion and be for no gerrymandering and other things in elections to ensure wins that we did for more than a century."

For the record as a person that used to live G.K. Butterfield's district, I'll support anti-gerrymandering laws that ban districts purposefully drawn for demographic reasons, which is currently required for North Carolina by federal law. Do Democrats not realize that districts like the 1st which are used to elect African-Americans make them weaker everywhere else? Also, what a gerrymander is needs to be absolutely defined, because I've seen the term used in conflicting circumstances by different commentators to further their respective arguments.

Luckily the Democrats have a large NCSC majority now and can clean up the mess.

More like go to war. Republican majorities rather then supermajorities, a Dem gov, and Dem courts mean that this is not going to be resolved without a fierce fight.
Logged
Virginia
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,753
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2018, 04:07:35 pm »

More like go to war. Republican majorities rather then supermajorities, a Dem gov, and Dem courts mean that this is not going to be resolved without a fierce fight.

I mean, in the end, if a 5 - 2 Democratic Supreme Court wants to redraw these maps >= 2019, there is little the NCGOP can do. They can drag their feet, stall, threaten people, complain, cry in a corner, etc etc, it doesn't matter. Either they end up capitulating or the court steps in and draws it for them (99% likely). So it might get heated, but there isn't much Republicans can do in this scenario. It's why they invested so much effort in trying to change the judiciary and how vacancies are filled. They were absolutely planning on packing the SC if the relevant amendment was approved.

The real battle is probably going to be 2020, for the governors office and 1 Republican Supreme Court seat, and especially 2022, where a slew of Supreme Court justices must stand for reelection: 3 Democrats, 1 Republican. There is a real chance that Republicans could take back the Supreme Court in 2022, particularly if a Democrat wins the presidency. This is a big deal, because if Democrats have not flipped a chamber of the legislature in 2020, there would be no stopping fresh gerrymanders. Democrats increasing their SC majority to 6 - 1 in 2020's elections should be a top priority to head off this scenario.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,690


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: December 06, 2018, 12:07:09 pm »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.
Logged
Deluded retread Vice Chair LFROMNJ
lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,260


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2018, 12:16:37 pm »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.

it has never been required for a super majority district anyway. I think by now outside the deep south a 45% AA district is enough according to some court rulings. In a place like NC a 40% AA district would reliably elect african americans as they would form like 4/5 the primary vote for D's and then the few liberal whites which is greater than Ms liberal whites would elect a black D.

Anyway Im no fan of the VRA required districts and they clearly aren't required anymore outside a few deep south states(see MS LA AL) as we saw people like Lauren underwood and Joe Nuguese get elected in like Purple heart% black districts.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,913


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2018, 12:23:35 pm »

As a person born in North Carolina and lived there til I was 30, the hand-wringing over North Carolina Republicans by the Democrats, a party that ran the state pretty much consecutively from the end of Reconstruction 130 or so years onward, is amusing. It's one corrupt party telling the other party "you're corrupt". Sorry, I actually took a class on North Carolina history.

If you are so hot on North Carolina history, you should know that (unlike in places like WI and MI) the Republicans' shenanigans are nothing new. The only new thing is they have an R next to their name instead of D. The two parties switched-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,115


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2018, 12:24:02 pm »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.

Because you fail to understand the complexity of the VRA. Districts can be anywhere from <40% AA to >56% AA depending on the circumstances. The AA candidate just needs to confidently win both the primary and the general, which varies by location. The districts also need to be 'realistically' compact, so you cannot spiral across a state just to collect AA voters like Pub gerrymanders love to. You also in most cases can't have a district with a super-majority AA voters, since that counts as racial packing, so what Pubs love to do is stick legislative districts full of AAs and try to make every other voter a white lib.

Finally, the VRA tends to benefit Southern Dems in ever case except dem trifectas, even though it hurts Midwestern dems. Under Pub Gerrys, the VRA forces dem seats, giving dems a floor they wouldn't normally have. For example, One could easily draw 4-0, 6-0, 7-0, 13-3, and 10-2 Pub maps in MS, AL, SC, GA, and NC respectively. In fair maps, the white libs are separated from AA's they would be paired with under Pub Manders to create more dem seats  - check my Sig for example of things like a 5-1-1 SC and AL, 8-5-1 GA, and 7-5-1 NC - all maps which generally match the states PVI. Only if Dems have full control over redistricting does the VRA harm their efforts in creating as many Dem seats as possible.
Logged
Cigarettes & Saints
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 88,067
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: December 06, 2018, 01:34:16 pm »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.

No because that is not true. That type of racial gerrymandering was not common until after the 1990 Census.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,690


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: December 07, 2018, 09:03:44 am »
« Edited: December 07, 2018, 09:10:57 am by StateBoiler »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.

it has never been required for a super majority district anyway. I think by now outside the deep south a 45% AA district is enough according to some court rulings. In a place like NC a 40% AA district would reliably elect african americans as they would form like 4/5 the primary vote for D's and then the few liberal whites which is greater than Ms liberal whites would elect a black D.

Anyway Im no fan of the VRA required districts and they clearly aren't required anymore outside a few deep south states(see MS LA AL) as we saw people like Lauren underwood and Joe Nuguese get elected in like Purple heart% black districts.

That makes them supermajority Democrat districts, which mean every district that surrounds it is more likely to elect a Republican. What's a gerrymander again?

Drawing districts specifically to elect African-Americans to Congress are by fact gerrymanders because you're taking all the Democrats and putting them in one area. In addition to being disgustingly segregationist, the Voting Rights Act requires them otherwise all the districts get thrown out, and yet some commentators are talking about gerrymandering as the reason Democrats lose while defending the existence of these districts. It's the height of bullsh**t.

I will not take any anti-gerrymandering post or comment by anyone seriously until they say they are for stopping this requirement on drawing districts, period, otherwise you're a walking contradiction. If that requirement was removed, this would IMPROVE Democrats' chances on getting more seats, so you cannot accuse me of supporting this for partisan reasons. So why don't Democrats support this other than they don't have the balls to stand up to the Black Caucus?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,569


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: December 07, 2018, 10:08:03 am »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.

it has never been required for a super majority district anyway. I think by now outside the deep south a 45% AA district is enough according to some court rulings. In a place like NC a 40% AA district would reliably elect african americans as they would form like 4/5 the primary vote for D's and then the few liberal whites which is greater than Ms liberal whites would elect a black D.

Anyway Im no fan of the VRA required districts and they clearly aren't required anymore outside a few deep south states(see MS LA AL) as we saw people like Lauren underwood and Joe Nuguese get elected in like Purple heart% black districts.

That makes them supermajority Democrat districts, which mean every district that surrounds it is more likely to elect a Republican. What's a gerrymander again?

Drawing districts specifically to elect African-Americans to Congress are by fact gerrymanders because you're taking all the Democrats and putting them in one area. In addition to being disgustingly segregationist, the Voting Rights Act requires them otherwise all the districts get thrown out, and yet some commentators are talking about gerrymandering as the reason Democrats lose while defending the existence of these districts. It's the height of bullsh**t.

I will not take any anti-gerrymandering post or comment by anyone seriously until they say they are for stopping this requirement on drawing districts, period, otherwise you're a walking contradiction. If that requirement was removed, this would IMPROVE Democrats' chances on getting more seats, so you cannot accuse me of supporting this for partisan reasons. So why don't Democrats support this other than they don't have the balls to stand up to the Black Caucus?

Why would anyone Think it important to protect black political representation in the South. You've truly stumbled upon a Deep mystery here and the only explanation is a political Conspiracy run by blacks and, eh, globalists.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,369
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: December 07, 2018, 10:08:19 am »

I like how every commenter after my post glazes over the fact I posted that North Carolina and other southern states are required by the federal government to create supermajority Democrat districts specifically to elect African-American candidates to Congress, and this in turn makes other districts that surround these districts more Republican. If you do not remove that requirement, that means Democrats in the rest of the state's districts would always be fighting uphill.

it has never been required for a super majority district anyway. I think by now outside the deep south a 45% AA district is enough according to some court rulings. In a place like NC a 40% AA district would reliably elect african americans as they would form like 4/5 the primary vote for D's and then the few liberal whites which is greater than Ms liberal whites would elect a black D.

Anyway Im no fan of the VRA required districts and they clearly aren't required anymore outside a few deep south states(see MS LA AL) as we saw people like Lauren underwood and Joe Nuguese get elected in like Purple heart% black districts.

That makes them supermajority Democrat districts, which mean every district that surrounds it is more likely to elect a Republican. What's a gerrymander again?

Drawing districts specifically to elect African-Americans to Congress are by fact gerrymanders because you're taking all the Democrats and putting them in one area. In addition to being disgustingly segregationist, the Voting Rights Act requires them otherwise all the districts get thrown out, and yet some commentators are talking about gerrymandering as the reason Democrats lose while defending the existence of these districts. It's the height of bullsh**t.

I will not take any anti-gerrymandering post or comment by anyone seriously until they say they are for stopping this requirement on drawing districts, period, otherwise you're a walking contradiction. If that requirement was removed, this would IMPROVE Democrats' chances on getting more seats, so you cannot accuse me of supporting this for partisan reasons. So why don't Democrats support this other than they don't have the balls to stand up to the Black Caucus?

VRA is essentially to proper representation of minority populations, especially in the Deep South. Saying otherwise is ignorant.
Logged
Deluded retread Vice Chair LFROMNJ
lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,260


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: December 07, 2018, 10:17:02 am »

I still don't like VRA districts as it does segregate the country too much. Its clear outside the DEEP racist hicks only a few VRA districts are required.

Lets see
Texas - No longer a need for strict VRA. if the GOP wants to gerrymander against hispanics they can get BTFO in a dummymander
GA-Bishops district is losing population anyway
FL- there is one northern florida black district. The three cuban districts are represented by white people. The black district could just be  2 districts now. One lean-Likely D in Jax and a Likely R Talhasee district.
The rest of America clearly has no problem electing black people in a major amount. See Lauren Underwood in Il 14th , Joe neguse in Co 2nd and Hayes in Ct 5. All of these are very low population african american districts and  two of them are swing districts .  Only a few states like MS AL and LA probably need it because of their racially polarized history.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,913


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: December 07, 2018, 12:11:50 pm »

I don't like VRA districts. Georgia's 6th congressional district is in the South, only 13% of back, and represented by Lucy McBath. StateBoiler is completely right on this one.
Logged
Mangez des pommes !
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,681
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: December 07, 2018, 02:45:30 pm »

VRA districts are an abomination. If you want proportional representation of racial (or any other) groups, there's a voting system for that and I'm all for adopting it. But if you want to use SMDs, they should be compact and COI-based.
Logged
Cigarettes & Saints
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 88,067
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: December 07, 2018, 02:48:14 pm »

Once again the VRA DOES NOT REQUIRE DRAWING THOSE SORT OF HEAVILY GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS.

They weren't even common until after 1990.
Logged
Virginia
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,753
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2018, 11:45:00 pm »

elll-ooo-elll:



(this maneuver is not guaranteed to succeed fwiw)
Logged
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,367
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2018, 05:06:58 am »

I still don't like VRA districts as it does segregate the country too much. Its clear outside the DEEP racist hicks only a few VRA districts are required.

Lets see
Texas - No longer a need for strict VRA. if the GOP wants to gerrymander against hispanics they can get BTFO in a dummymander
GA-Bishops district is losing population anyway
FL- there is one northern florida black district. The three cuban districts are represented by white people. The black district could just be  2 districts now. One lean-Likely D in Jax and a Likely R Talhasee district.
The rest of America clearly has no problem electing black people in a major amount. See Lauren Underwood in Il 14th , Joe neguse in Co 2nd and Hayes in Ct 5. All of these are very low population african american districts and  two of them are swing districts .  Only a few states like MS AL and LA probably need it because of their racially polarized history.

+1.
Logged
Mangez des pommes !
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,681
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: December 19, 2018, 12:24:32 am »

elll-ooo-elll:



(this maneuver is not guaranteed to succeed fwiw)

...wait, what does that mean?
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,831
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: December 19, 2018, 01:44:09 am »
« Edited: December 19, 2018, 01:47:11 am by Tintrlvr »

elll-ooo-elll:



(this maneuver is not guaranteed to succeed fwiw)

...wait, what does that mean?

In the US, a court case originally brought in state court can be removed to federal court if there is a substantial federal issue (an issue under federal law) at stake in the case. State courts can decide federal law, but the defendant (who didn't choose the forum of the case) generally has a right to have federal issues decided in federal court so can seek removal in the early stages of the case. If removed, all federal issues would be decided in federal court, and any remaining state law issues are remanded to state court. A defendant can file for removal to federal court at pretty much any time, and the entire proceeding has to be stopped in state court until the federal court has ruled as to whether it has jurisdiction. If the federal court has jurisdiction, it has to take the case; if it doesn't (because, among other possible reasons, there is no substantial federal issue), it has to remand the case back to state court.

The challenge to the districts is based purely on state law, the North Carolina Constitution. However, the NCGOP is making two arguments here for removal.

The first is that the at least some of the districts sought to be changed were drawn on the order of a federal court (though not by a federal court) in order to ensure compliance with federal law (the VRA) and the federal Constitution, and then they hand-wave to suggest that changing those districts at all would be potentially contrary to or somehow in conflict with federal law, or at least involve interests that could be contrary to federal law (even though it obviously wouldn't be) and therefore they have a right to have a federal court to hear the case. This argument is obvious bunk, and the federal courts will see right through it.

The second argument is truly ridiculous; they claim that any redraw of the map would violate an ostensible federal constitutional right of Republican voters to have representation in Republican-favoring gerrymandered districts. This is even more obvious bunk, and the federal courts will laugh it back to state court.

So it's mostly just a time-wasting procedural tactic in this particular instance. Presumably they are trying to run out the clock on having to redraw before the 2020 elections.
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,831
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: December 19, 2018, 01:56:22 am »

I still don't like VRA districts as it does segregate the country too much. Its clear outside the DEEP racist hicks only a few VRA districts are required.

Lets see
Texas - No longer a need for strict VRA. if the GOP wants to gerrymander against hispanics they can get BTFO in a dummymander
GA-Bishops district is losing population anyway
FL- there is one northern florida black district. The three cuban districts are represented by white people. The black district could just be  2 districts now. One lean-Likely D in Jax and a Likely R Talhasee district.
The rest of America clearly has no problem electing black people in a major amount. See Lauren Underwood in Il 14th , Joe neguse in Co 2nd and Hayes in Ct 5. All of these are very low population african american districts and  two of them are swing districts .  Only a few states like MS AL and LA probably need it because of their racially polarized history.

This missed the point entirely. The VRA is not about electing black or other minority politicians. It is about enabling minority voters to elect the candidates of their choice (even when that candidate is not of that minority group). Underwood, Neguse and Hayes have nothing to do with the VRA.

I basically agree that VRA districts are not great in many ways, but it's the only real way to ensure that minority voters can elect candidates of their choice in an FPTP, single-member district system in states that are highly polarized on racial lines (including all of the states you mentioned) barring some sort of very strong federal anti-gerrymandering law (or constitutional finding).
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC