3 ms·

Why? Federal holiday? Nope. Top-two primaries? Nope. The us constitution doesnt address political parties, currently. Redistricting rules? Nope. Take a look at

by jack9 9y ago

Why? Federal holiday? Nope. Top-two primaries? Nope. The us constitution doesnt address political parties, currently. Redistricting rules? Nope. Take a look at Article 1, Section 4 of the us constitution and/or https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedu...

cjensen 9y ago
Not sure, but under the US Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves. So this bill is unenforceable. Both parties like to pass symbolic gestures like this on occasion even though they know it cannot be law. The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race. Corrections welcome.
- jack9 9y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing. From the US Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/, except as to the Places of chusing Senators The bill is legal by this provision.
  - cjensen 9y ago
    I did check the sources. The line you quote is the wrong line. The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. Further, "how districting is performed" is pretty vague in the original Constitution which I believe means it is left to the states to decide. The 14th Amendment implies that the states must use districts -- before then they could have used a statewide system.
    - jack9 9y ago
      > The line you quote is the wrong line I'm very sure it is not. Article 1, Section 4. > The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. That's not how the law is read (X "topic" is governed by Y statute solely). One section does not provide the guidelines for apportionment, alone. Preceding sections generally override following sections when in doubt, unless explicitly overridden in following sections. Reapportionment has nothing to do with elections, but the result of the elections as it pertains to the composition of Congress in relation to population. There is nothing in regard to this to require a change to the constitution, as an amendment.

by jack9 9y ago

cjensen 9y ago

Not sure, but under the US Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves. So this bill is unenforceable. Both parties like to pass symbolic gestures like this on occasion even though they know it cannot be law. The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race. Corrections welcome.

jack9 9y ago
> I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing. From the US Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/, except as to the Places of chusing Senators The bill is legal by this provision.
- cjensen 9y ago
  I did check the sources. The line you quote is the wrong line. The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. Further, "how districting is performed" is pretty vague in the original Constitution which I believe means it is left to the states to decide. The 14th Amendment implies that the states must use districts -- before then they could have used a statewide system.
  - jack9 9y ago
    > The line you quote is the wrong line I'm very sure it is not. Article 1, Section 4. > The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. That's not how the law is read (X "topic" is governed by Y statute solely). One section does not provide the guidelines for apportionment, alone. Preceding sections generally override following sections when in doubt, unless explicitly overridden in following sections. Reapportionment has nothing to do with elections, but the result of the elections as it pertains to the composition of Congress in relation to population. There is nothing in regard to this to require a change to the constitution, as an amendment.