They should just create an overlay of the amount of districts with equal size, then add and subtract to keep whole towns together and that be the extent of the rigging. The people elected are supposed to represent everyone in the district, so the idea that you need to create a district just for latinos or blacks is frankly just racist.

I agree. However, before the mandated court redistricting, the opposite problem - also racist - was the issue. The district maps intentionally corraled the Hispanic population into very few districts, and those districts were gerrymandered just as badly. So don't go thinking this was a perfectly fine map the GOP employed, and then the evil courts corrected them. The courts' map is probably more fair and closer to regional reality.

 

But I agree with your general premise that you could, if you wanted to, do districts via a simple population heat map, and slice off regions, by way of city/county boundaries only. Wouldn't be that hard to accomplish.

 

Iowa has a reasonable way of doing redistricting.

. So don't go thinking this was a perfectly fine map the GOP employed, and then the evil courts corrected them. The courts' map is probably more fair and closer to regional reality.

Thought nothing of the sort, I know whatever party in power tries to maneuver it to their advantage. I think it is wrong, however it is done. Making districts that contain '70% minorities' or '75% of one party voters to be a safe district' is just wrong if there is no cohesiveness in the district. I think the law just says it has to have x amount of people, not x amount of Republicans, Mexicans or other. Having districts that worm across the state just to make up some desired population density is wrong.

Thought nothing of the sort, I know whatever party in power tries to maneuver it to their advantage. I think it is wrong, however it is done. Making districts that contain '70% minorities' or '75% of one party voters to be a safe district' is just wrong if there is no cohesiveness in the district. I think the law just says it has to have x amount of people, not x amount of Republicans, Mexicans or other. Having districts that worm across the state just to make up some desired population density is wrong.

Agreed.

 

Thought nothing of the sort, I know whatever party in power tries to maneuver it to their advantage. I think it is wrong, however it is done. Making districts that contain '70% minorities' or '75% of one party voters to be a safe district' is just wrong if there is no cohesiveness in the district. I think the law just says it has to have x amount of people, not x amount of Republicans, Mexicans or other. Having districts that worm across the state just to make up some desired population density is wrong.

 

 

Wholly Crap, the right, middle, and now left all agree!

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in and issued an injunction against using the re-drawn Texas Congressional Map.

 

The real problem is that the filing date for campaigns is later this week. Thus, candidates won't know what districts they're filing for if they actually try to run, unless the injunction is lifted in the next couple days. More likely is that there is several weeks/months of legal maneuvering to go, and this could well wind up forcing texas to delay its primary election.

The Supreme Court has unanimously struck down the court-drawn Texas Redistricting map. They continue to agree that the initial map is a violation of the voting rights act, but the majority suggested that the redrawn map should not be a completely new map from the start, but should instead try to fix the original map, giving some deference to the original legislative process.

Makes sense to me.

The insider magazine "The Hill" suggests that the Texas Republicans may be closing in on throwing in the towel and negotiating a settlement that would create multiple new hispanic-dominated districts, rather than having to face a 3 judge federal panel again. They write that any agreement would lead to 4-5 new districts that would likely all lean Democratic.