I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Basically the Legislature got pissy they couldn't gerrymander because of the citizens of Arizona voted to have an independent (sort of) panel handle redistricting in the state. Since they can't just change the law; iirc, citizens of Arizona also voted to restrict the state from doing that with propositions, why they legislature went to the feds when medical marijuana was passed by the voters, even though they boast about "sticking it to the feds, and state rights," so damn often.
Here is the arguement:
Argument analysis: Literalism vs. the power of the people : SCOTUSblogArizona tried that experiment with a ballot measure, Proposition 106, but the state’s legislature — relying on a literal reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause — has fought back, seeking to reclaim the redistricting power for itself. That clause assigns the duty of drawing election maps to “the legislature” of a state, but that is not further defined.
Over and over again, the Arizona legislature’s lawyer in the Court on Monday, Washington attorney Paul D. Clement, insisted that “legislature” in constitutional terms has “a certain meaning”: it can only mean a “representative body” that writes a state’s laws. So, he argued, it is unconstitutional for the people of a state to hand off congressional redistricting to “an unelected and unaccountable” state commission.
So, in a way it can be at least a sort of ruling on gerrymandering, killing independent panels will pretty much give full sail ahead to all the gerrymandering a state legislature wants. EDIT: Finished reading the above link, seems more fit to say that the courts are basically going to rule in favor of gerrymandering, because **** you voters!
As to the OP, reading the article it doesn't sound like a bad idea, as long as they are counting citizens (including children) and not just voters. Not that I'd be overly pleased with more affluent areas getting additional power, but if that is the way the numbers work then it's how it works (sadly). I also agree it seems more a political move, not as bad as the Arizona one but still, then a concern for accuracy and proper representation.
Last edited by coyotedelmar; 05-28-15 at 12:23 AM.
Well i'm guessing this would eliminate the rolls for prisoners and minors as well then, which should reduce the # of representatives and electoral votes in red states, since half of the population is in jail with 15 kids