The Blue State Gerrymander Walk-Back

[CivilDiscourse]

Color me surprised...

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-blue-state-gerrymander-walk-back-11619822236

After this week’s release of decennial Census apportionments, the 2022 redistricting battles are underway. If you’ve been reading the press, you know what to expect: Republicans will gerrymander relentlessly to squeeze more GOP House seats out of red and purple states, while Democrats will model high-minded good governance and draw maps without regard to politics.

OK, maybe not exactly. The post-2010 liberal zeal for nonpartisan map-drawing seems to be abating in places where Democrats are in power. See how the political winds are blowing in two blue states, Illinois and New York, that each lost a congressional seat in the latest Census count.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker campaigned in 2018 against partisan gerrymandering, saying he would "pledge to veto" any 2022 map drawn by the state Legislature. He insisted on "an independent commission to handle creating a new legislative map." Last month Republicans in the Legislature proposed to create a redistricting commission appointed by the state’s Supreme Court.

But as the partisan pens meet paper, Gov. Pritzker now says he’ll be satisfied with a map drawn by his legislative allies. In a recent press conference he walked back his veto pledge and scored Republicans for objecting to Democratic-controlled redistricting. "I hope the Republicans will choose to work with Democrats on the map. Right now it looks like they’re just saying no," he said.

Democrats control more than 60% of seats in one Illinois legislative chamber and nearly 70% in the other. They occupy 13 of 18 seats in its federal House delegation. The Democratic-controlled redistricting will naturally seek to preserve those state-level majorities and ensure that the House district lost to the new Census apportionment is majority-GOP.

Campaign promises against gerrymandering don’t mean much when a state government is under one-party control. In New York, Democrats are hard at work neutering the bipartisan commission set up in 2014 to limit partisan manipulations of the electoral map.

Democrats in Albany first tried to withhold funding from the commission, which is composed of four Democrats, four Republicans and two independents. Now it’s placed an opaque constitutional amendment on the ballot this November designed to tilt the balance of power on the commission ahead of its deadline to submit a map in January.

The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the commission’s co-directors have support from commissioners appointed by the minority party, and weaken bipartisan vote requirements for the commission to send a map to the Legislature. It would also eliminate the supermajority requirement for the Democratic-controlled Legislature to approve any map, further boxing out the GOP.

These changes to the delicate compromise that made the "independent" commission politically palatable increase the chance that it will fail to vote on a map at all. If that happens, Albany Democrats would have free rein to carve up districts as they please. Democrats are looking to expand their 19 to 8 majority in the Empire State House delegation.

None of this should be surprising to observers of the gerrymandering debate. Both parties try to exploit their dominance in states to give their candidates an edge. The special cynicism comes from those who claim to be high-minded in supporting an "independent" commission that delivers similar partisan results. Ditto for the media who wink at such shenanigans.

District-drawing is a political process no matter which body does it. But perhaps the country can be spared the usual volume of Democratic and media howls about how any progressive weakness in House elections is the result of singular Republican deviousness.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Color me surprised...

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-blue-state-gerrymander-walk-back-11619822236

After this week’s release of decennial Census apportionments, the 2022 redistricting battles are underway. If you’ve been reading the press, you know what to expect: Republicans will gerrymander relentlessly to squeeze more GOP House seats out of red and purple states, while Democrats will model high-minded good governance and draw maps without regard to politics.

OK, maybe not exactly. The post-2010 liberal zeal for nonpartisan map-drawing seems to be abating in places where Democrats are in power. See how the political winds are blowing in two blue states, Illinois and New York, that each lost a congressional seat in the latest Census count.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker campaigned in 2018 against partisan gerrymandering, saying he would "pledge to veto" any 2022 map drawn by the state Legislature. He insisted on "an independent commission to handle creating a new legislative map." Last month Republicans in the Legislature proposed to create a redistricting commission appointed by the state’s Supreme Court.

But as the partisan pens meet paper, Gov. Pritzker now says he’ll be satisfied with a map drawn by his legislative allies. In a recent press conference he walked back his veto pledge and scored Republicans for objecting to Democratic-controlled redistricting. "I hope the Republicans will choose to work with Democrats on the map. Right now it looks like they’re just saying no," he said.

Democrats control more than 60% of seats in one Illinois legislative chamber and nearly 70% in the other. They occupy 13 of 18 seats in its federal House delegation. The Democratic-controlled redistricting will naturally seek to preserve those state-level majorities and ensure that the House district lost to the new Census apportionment is majority-GOP.

Campaign promises against gerrymandering don’t mean much when a state government is under one-party control. In New York, Democrats are hard at work neutering the bipartisan commission set up in 2014 to limit partisan manipulations of the electoral map.

Democrats in Albany first tried to withhold funding from the commission, which is composed of four Democrats, four Republicans and two independents. Now it’s placed an opaque constitutional amendment on the ballot this November designed to tilt the balance of power on the commission ahead of its deadline to submit a map in January.

The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the commission’s co-directors have support from commissioners appointed by the minority party, and weaken bipartisan vote requirements for the commission to send a map to the Legislature. It would also eliminate the supermajority requirement for the Democratic-controlled Legislature to approve any map, further boxing out the GOP.

These changes to the delicate compromise that made the "independent" commission politically palatable increase the chance that it will fail to vote on a map at all. If that happens, Albany Democrats would have free rein to carve up districts as they please. Democrats are looking to expand their 19 to 8 majority in the Empire State House delegation.

None of this should be surprising to observers of the gerrymandering debate. Both parties try to exploit their dominance in states to give their candidates an edge. The special cynicism comes from those who claim to be high-minded in supporting an "independent" commission that delivers similar partisan results. Ditto for the media who wink at such shenanigans.

District-drawing is a political process no matter which body does it. But perhaps the country can be spared the usual volume of Democratic and media howls about how any progressive weakness in House elections is the result of singular Republican deviousness.

© Copyright Original Source

Both sides gerrymander when presented the opportunity.

[CivilDiscourse]

Both sides gerrymander when presented the opportunity.

Oh yes. I had to laugh a while back when there was an "indepth" analysis of gerrymandering that "destroyed" the "both sides do it" line. Their argument. That the current (post 2010) districticing had more red states gerrymandered than blue states gerrymandered. Completely ignoring the fact that there were more red states than there were blue states.

[rogue06]

Oh yes. I had to laugh a while back when there was an "indepth" analysis of gerrymandering that "destroyed" the "both sides do it" line. Their argument. That the current (post 2010) districticing had more red states gerrymandered than blue states gerrymandered. Completely ignoring the fact that there were more red states than there were blue states.

And of course there was gerrymandering going on in those blue states.

[CivilDiscourse]

And of course there was gerrymandering going on in those blue states.

Yup, and this article shows that it's not just something in the pass. Blue states are currently working to subvert their own anti-gerrymandering positions.

[Stoic]

Yup, and this article shows that it's not just something in the pass. Blue states are currently working to subvert their own anti-gerrymandering positions.

I'm not philosophically opposed to gerrymandering.

But I would like to point out that someone could be philosophically opposed to gerrymandering, and still give blue states a pass (without being hypocritical) based on the idea that if blue states refused to do it, that would be akin to unilateral disarmament. The elimination of gerrymandering would have to be imposed on the states by the federal government.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm not philosophically opposed to gerrymandering.

But I would like to point out that someone could be philosophically opposed to gerrymandering, and still give blue states a pass (without being hypocritical) based on the idea that if blue states refused to do it, that would be akin to unilateral disarmament. The elimination of gerrymandering would have to be imposed on the states by the federal government.

That would still be hypocritical.

[rogue06]

I'm not philosophically opposed to gerrymandering.

But I would like to point out that someone could be philosophically opposed to gerrymandering, and still give blue states a pass (without being hypocritical) based on the idea that if blue states refused to do it, that would be akin to unilateral disarmament. The elimination of gerrymandering would have to be imposed on the states by the federal government.

No surprise that you wouldn't be oblivious to the blatant hypocrisy of whining about it, trying to pass laws to prevent it and then gleefully doing a 180 and trying to rescind any laws they passed so they can do it too.

[Stoic]

That would still be hypocritical.

It might meet some particular definitions of the word, but none that actually imply that there is something wrong with it.

If I punch you in the face, and you retaliate by punching me in the face, and then you complain that I punched you in the face, then you would be a hypocrite (by some definitions). But there would be nothing wrong with that.

[CivilDiscourse]

It might meet some particular definitions of the word, but none that actually imply that there is something wrong with it.

If I punch you in the face, and you retaliate by punching me in the face, and then you complain that I punched you in the face, then you would be a hypocrite (by some definitions). But there would be nothing wrong with that.

If you claim that you shouldn't resort to violence to end conflict, and then resort to punching someone in the face to end a conflict, you are a hypocrite. Your analogy only holds if the argument is "GOP gerrymandering is wrong."

[Stoic]

If you claim that you shouldn't resort to violence to end conflict, and then resort to punching someone in the face to end a conflict, you are a hypocrite. Your analogy only holds if the argument is "GOP gerrymandering is wrong."

It would help if you would state which definition of "hypocrite" (or "hypocrisy") you are using.

[CivilDiscourse]

It would help if you would state which definition of "hypocrite" (or "hypocrisy") you are using.

Simple. You are a hypocrite when you are saying something shouldn't be done, then you do that same thing. (Especially if you've been doing that same thing for years)

[Stoic]

Simple. You are a hypocrite when you are saying something shouldn't be done, then you do that same thing. (Especially if you've been doing that same thing for years)

So if you say people shouldn't punch other people, and you punch someone back, you are a hypocrite.

[Mountain Man]

It might meet some particular definitions of the word, but none that actually imply that there is something wrong with it.

[CivilDiscourse]

So if you say people shouldn't punch other people, and you punch someone back, you are a hypocrite.

If you claim that you shouldn't resort to violence to end conflict, and then resort to punching someone in the face to end a conflict, you are a hypocrite.