Federal Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Map Again

[poweRob]

Struck down the districts and ordered them redrawn for THIS election coming November. I doubt they will.

Federal Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Map Again

A federal court in North Carolina ruled for the second time this year that the state’s congressional map was drawn to so severely benefit Republicans that it violates the Constitution.

The court held on Monday that North Carolina’s congressional map violates Article I, the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

A three-judge panel reached an identical conclusion in January, but after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two separate partisan gerrymandering cases, it sent the North Carolina case back to the lower court for further consideration.​

 

[trouble13]

Struck down the districts and ordered them redrawn for THIS election coming November. I doubt they will.

Federal Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Map Again

A federal court in North Carolina ruled for the second time this year that the state’s congressional map was drawn to so severely benefit Republicans that it violates the Constitution.

The court held on Monday that North Carolina’s congressional map violates Article I, the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

A three-judge panel reached an identical conclusion in January, but after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two separate partisan gerrymandering cases, it sent the North Carolina case back to the lower court for further consideration.​

These cases remind me of the cases trying to define the difference between art and pornography. Equal protection I'm is a rather flimsy and inaccurate argument. They are asking for representation that more closely resembles the amount of registered party members.

The problem is they are only taking 2 party's into consideration. It raises the obvious question of shouldn't independents as well as other party's receive equal protection (as they are calling it)?

The second problem is that they are not arguing for nonpartisan lines to be drawn. They are arguing the opposite. They want partisan lines. They understandably don't approve of the current ones because it puts them at a disadvantage but they are saying they want partisan lines that put them at less of disadvantage. They are essentially demanding proportional representation. If that's the case they should rewrite the law so that only 1party can run in certain districts so it assures them of the outcome they are demanding.

Saying they are opposed to gerrymandering is nothing but partisan spin. I'm also a bit confused where a federal courts derives jurisdiction over state election laws. In this case I would think the highest court of appeal is at the state level.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk