Exactly, democracy doesn't seem to be in jeopardy in those states. BTW, somebody needs to tell the treasonous Kenyan to shut up.
IF they ever get back in office. . back in power .. . . the DEMOCRATS have to RAM ROD a correction of all this sh*t . . .. Add an Amendment to stop it Good Law does good things GREAT LAW PREVENTS BAD THINGS Whoa! You hood is showing Rocket River
The voters didn't vote for an autocrat. If Trump's ultimate goal is the perpetually retain power for himself and his family, then this is the exact thing the founding father's were trying to protect us against. Winning an election doesn't mean you get free rein. And protecting the minority is JUST as important, if not more important.
America’s issues result from still having this agrarian governmental system that favors land. Notice how much we subsidize rural, conservative America. I don’t get some bubba, cousin f*cker tax break to put bees on my property.
I have to wonder about what the pundits I'm hearing are saying about all this. One assertion I'm hearing is that Republicans can't follow through on all their threats because they don't have the power to vacate seats or appoint new legislators or have the FBI help drag these guys back. Like they haven't been paying attention since 2016. Trump doesn't ask permission; he acts and forces the courts to bless it later. He will do it here too. And Abbott is drafting behind him. I'm also hearing a resignation to the idea that Democrats will not be able to hold this quorum-break and the Republicans will eventually pass these maps. That some Democrats are only willing to ruin one Special Session but have to come home to do their day jobs or whatever. If that's true, why did we bother starting down this road? Some impotent virtue-signaling? If so, don't bother. Lauren Ashley Simmons, unless the FBI drags you back to Texas in handcuffs, if you are present for the gerrymander I won't vote for you again. Gerrymandering stopped net-benefitting Democrats way back in 2003 when Republicans got ahold of redistricting in -- of all places -- Texas and gerrymandered it. Meanwhile, some Democratic strongholds got a conscience and started to handicap their own ability to gerrymander in their states. I was actually here on the bbs in 2003, as crazy as that is, but the earliest post I see myself using the word gerrymander is in 2011. Still, your memory of Democrats being the party of gerrymandering is pretty dated. Since the dawn of the 21st century the party benefitting from this practice has been the Republicans. The democratic state legislators also won their elections. So state representation should reflect what their voters voted for. The idea that what the state as a whole picked in a national election for the executive should impinge on what my district can pick in a local election for a legislative position is a fascist idea. We have divided government for a reason. We have checks and balances for a reason. Ram rodding fair governance sounds like a bit of an irony. Everyone should want fair representation and shouldn't need to have it forced upon them. However, given the state of politics, fair representation -- chosen or forced upon us -- is probably too optimistic.
Without getting into the deep dive of gerrymandering, which I'd love to in a few weeks, to game this out imo (my info comes from reading the Texas Constitution, following state and federal legal decisions, and also taking into account Texas political pundits from left and right leaning sources): - Dems hold out long enough to stall the current special session. Abbott starts another the next day. Dems trickle back slowly and the new maps pass. Maybe Cali and NY act fast enough to retaliate, but it's harder there because both states have anti-gerrymandering mechanisms in their state laws. Texas succeeds and the house remains Republican majority with a 45% vote share in the midterms. This is my best guess. - Another scenario is Dems have a backbone and stay out of state through December. Per Texas House rules, that would cost maybe $30k in fines per person. In this case, it's too late to adopt new maps as it's after the filing deadlines and there would be Purcell Principle based federal lawsuits. Maybe Repubs try to push it through, but this scenario is less likely to be successful for new maps. In this case, it's way too late for Dem states to do anything. - Least likely scenario is FBI making out-of-state arrests for Dem lawmakers essentially going on strike. You would be stretching the law to the Trumpian extremes. Who am I kidding? This is very possible as we're getting more 3rd world by the day, lol. I don't think this happens, but it's possible. Best strategy for Republicans imo is to just keep talking Sh about the Dems and wait for them to trickle back for the next special session because some are poor and others are spineless. And then you get scenario 1 above with little time for California to respond.
My district was gerrymandered away back in 2008. It sucks not actually having a congressional rep from your region. I'm not sure what the perfect answer to fixing the problem is. It is hard to have a completely unbiased person or group drawing the lines. No state with more than 4 seats should be seeing 75% of their Reps from one party.
Unfortunately, your Least Likely scenario is probably the most likely as Trump has shown us he will push or break any law he wants to and let the courts decide. It still doesn't hurt enough yet for We The People to do something. But it's going to.
