21 ms·

North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Congressional Map

277 points by kyleblarson 9y ago

samch 9y ago
In related news, the NC Legislature is also trying to completely overhaul the judicial structure including redrawing the judicial districts. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article192867294.html http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politic...
- AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
  You mean the election-proof Republican majority will be allowed to staff the courts with Republican judges who will look the other way at their gerrymandering? Brilliant!
cjslep 9y ago
Born and raised in NC: Can't say I am surprised.
SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
Related: North Carolina is no longer a democracy http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.h... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carolina-not-democracy-elections-cuba-iran-venezuela-gop-a7494561.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carol... http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/23/north_carolina_doesn_t_really_qualify_as_a_democracy_anymore.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/23/north_caro...
- sp332 9y ago
  And a counterpoint, also on Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/the_bogus_claim_that_north_carolina_is_no_longer_a_democracy.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - travmatt 9y ago
    I don’t understand the legitimacy of the criticisms that this article is leveling at the former. I can’t tell why it’s saying anything more than “I don’t like this study therefore it’s wrong and stupid and dangerous.” As it stands now, North Carolina has an electoral system that gives the minority party a veto proof absolute majority in their legislative branch, which seems like the opposite of democracy. I’d think the criticism would be more honest if it engaged with the facts plainly, instead of basing itself on just the personal opinions of the author.
    - sp332 9y ago
      Any study that puts North Korea that high on a measure of democracy is going to take a serious credibility hit. Also according to the same paper, there are many states that score lower than NC on the same scale. So the first article calling out NC cherry-picked data from a questionable study.
      - travmatt 9y ago
        Again I’m just not seeing any engagement with actual data beyond - “I don’t like this study so obviously it’s flawed and you must agree with me because fairness.” I’ll put it more simply, again. North Carolina has an electoral system that gives the minority party an absolute veto proof majority of their congress. In my view that is incompatible with democracy, and I don’t understand why I should give any credence to a criticism who can’t engage with that point honestly and forthrightly. I’m open to hearing more about alternative opinions, but for me that requires a better argument.
        sp332 9y ago
        I don’t understand why I should give any credence to a criticism who can’t engage with that point honestly and forthrightly. That's exactly why the original article can be dismissed. Of course there's a lot wrong in NC but no one has to engage data that is put forward in bad faith. Find (or write) a "forthright" argument first.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  A completely biased report. Yes, gerrymandering is insane in NC, but it's actually pretty well distributed between both parties. Raleigh is gerrymandered to the Republicans and Charlotte and Fayetteville are for rigged for the Democrats. The rest of the state is pretty much full-on red, so the majority Republican legislature truly reflects the state as a democratic-republic. NC has Voter ID laws, which were a huge part of the x/100 score given. Literally every other developed country (and most undeveloped countries) in the world require ID to vote, but somehow it's "undemocratic", among other outrageous things, if you try to do it in the U.S.
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    Relevant: https://youtu.be/odB1wWPqSlE https://youtu.be/odB1wWPqSlE
    - IanDrake 9y ago
      I know, I know, down vote me because it’s not PC to point out that leftist thinking is racist.
      - dang 9y ago
        Complaints about voting break the HN guidelines, and so does ideological flamebait and race-baiting. Please don't do any of these things here, regardless of ideology. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - andrewaylett 9y ago
    The UK (which is -- at least for the moment -- usually considered "developed") doesn't require ID to vote.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > Literally every other developed country (and most undeveloped countries) in the world require ID to vote Well, the UK doesn't. And most other developed countries have proper national mandatory ID systems where everyone has an ID. People would complain a lot less about the ID requirement if the ID was equally easy to get for all voters, which it isn't.
shove 9y ago
I'm from NC and was arrested (twice -- for 2nd degree trespass) while protesting these clowns. Make no mistake, the crass disregard for the democratic process on display in NC is a model coming soon to a state near you :( While rulings like this are good news, what of the laws passed by these unconstitutionally "elected" bodies during the last decade? The damage (to our school system for example) is lasting and won't be undone by a mere SCOTUS rulings.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  What the elected, Republican majority legislature voted for is not "crass disregard for the democratic process". It's actually the democratic process. If the legislature passes a bill that's unconstitutional, then it's up to the judicial branch to rectify that. By population, NC is a 50/50 red/blue state. Even by county, which is what a non-gerrymandered legislature would look like, it's all red outside of Charlotte and Raleigh, and 50/50 in places like Greensboro or Fayetteville. I'm against HB-2 as well, but it's up to the judicial to rectify that.
  - Harimwakairi 9y ago
    > What the elected, Republican majority legislature voted for is not "crass disregard for the democratic process". The fact that the judiciary has the power to stop them does not make what they did any more or less acceptable. Gerrymandering the state specifically to subvert the will of the voting population is crass disregard for the democratic process.
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      Which is why the judiciary deemed it unconstitutional! You make my point for me.
      - cardamomo 9y ago
        It should not be the goal of any elected official or member our federal or state governments to pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions. I agree with you that judicial review is an important tool to remove such laws after they've been passed, but the current trend in U.S. federal and state legislatures is to find both blatant and subtle ways to circumvent our constitutions.
rayiner 9y ago
The opinion, which does not appear to be linked in the NYT article, is here: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/CC_LWV_v_Rucho_MemorandumOpinion_01.09.18.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work.... Interestingly, all three judges, including Judge Osteen, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed that the map was unconstitutional and the legislature had to try again. Judge Osteen's dissent was only in part, and addressed the first amendment claim and the appointment of a special master to oversee the second attempt at drawing the map.
- MithrilTuxedo 9y ago
  Thank you, I was looking for that. Does anyone know: is it typical for the NYT to not link to court decisions? I'm used to such links in online news stories.
koolba 9y ago
Is there a particular standard used to determine that a given map is considered gerrymandered? Or is it like porn, i.e., you know it when you see it?
- sp332 9y ago
  Nothing official, but people are working on quantifying it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts-law/gerrymander/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts... Even if it's not perfect, it's useful to point out the most egregious cases.
- Redoubts 9y ago
  That's the million dollar question, and it's likely to be the end point of the SCOTUS discussion on the matter. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-trial/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-tr... > In a 2004 opinion, [Justice Anthony Kennedy] expressed alarm at the practice of extreme partisan gerrymandering but said the court should hold off on outlawing it. He also left the door open to ruling differently in the future, as long as lawyers provided a suitable way to measure when gerrymandering goes too far. He said that without that measurement, the court runs the risk of becoming too involved in a decision-making process that is legally mandated to state legislatures.
- dboreham 9y ago
  As you might imagine, it is possible to consider this as a purely mathematical problem and to thereby come up with measures of gerrymandered-ness. It is a widely studied field. e.g.: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/24334/Solbrig_washington_0250O_12376.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/h... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Dube/publication/315772532_Mathematical_Characteristics_of_District_Boundary_Lines_as_Indicators_of_Partisan_Gerrymandering_in_US_House_Elections/links/58e3b74ea6fdcc86ade771a4/Mathematical-Characteristics-of-District-Boundary-Lines-as-Indicators-of-Partisan-Gerrymandering-in-US-House-Elections.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Dube/publicatio...
  - 9y ago
calimac 9y ago
https://www.projectveritas.com/video/new-video-twitter-senior-engineer-more-than-happy-to-release-private-trump-messages-to-doj/ https://www.projectveritas.com/video/new-video-twitter-senio...
jzylstra 9y ago
Regarding the last two paragraphs of the article, what is the typical way that past presidents are meant to be addressed? Contrast the curt 'Mr. Obama' with President Jimmy Carter and President George W. Bush. >In addition to Judge Wynn, an appointee of Mr. Obama’s, Senior Judge W. Earl Britt of the Federal District Court in Raleigh joined the opinion. Judge Britt was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. >Judge William L. Osteen Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush and sits on the federal bench in Greensboro, said he agreed that the existing map violated the 14th Amendment, but he disputed other parts of Judge Wynn’s opinion, including the decision to appoint an independent expert to begin preparing an alternative map.
- nxc18 9y ago
  'President' is proper and correct.
  - zeveb 9y ago
    I think it's more appropriate to only refer to someone by his current position, not by his former positions: President Trump, Secretary Tillerson, Senator Warren — but Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, Mrs. Clinton &c. America is a republic, not a monarchy or aristocracy: titles are for a limited duration, not for life.
    - nxc18 9y ago
      I personally agree, but that would require a culture shift. I find it problematic that it is used inconsistently - all presidents other than Obama keep their titles for life. Maybe only white presidents keep their title for life? I’d rather see that disparity tackled first, whether that means everyone keeps their title or no one.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        See the other comments for the real, benign, explanation. This also seems to be a good occasion to encourage people to work from an assumption of good faith. It's especially fitting considering this is the New York Times, a publication that, even if it were racist (which it is not), would probably be smart enough not to let it shine through in the most obvious way possible.
matt_s 9y ago
One article I read said that there is a 30% Republican voter base that is covered by 76% of the congressional maps. They redrew the maps so they would have 10 seats and Dems would have 3. In the past I've read the Democrats have done similar things. As a software engineer, isn't there some way to draw maps which balance out demographics programmatically? While taking into consideration population, rural, suburban, urban areas, etc. Shouldn't there be a national policy/process that is followed? It would make some sense to abolish recording what party people affiliate with. It really serves no purpose. Let people vote in both parties primaries.
- derwiki 9y ago
  Software would be relatively easy, enacting the policy difficult. Who would want to relinquish their power to a computer?
  - wybiral 9y ago
    And the concerns of bias in the algorithm could still be there. As would the fear of hacking. Neither seem as big of an issue as flat-out intentional gerrymandering and could be mitigated by open review process. But it's unprecedented which makes it hard to enact without a lot of momentum.
- shove 9y ago
  It's very true that in the past the Dems have behaved similarly. I used to agree (also a software engineer) that this is a puzzle that ought to be solveable with weighted voronoi diagrams or somesuch but then I read: https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/10/17/the-problem-of-defining-gerrymandering-and-what-can-be-done/ https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/10/17/the-problem-of-d...
- samch 9y ago
  I think the current analytical mechanism to achieve balance is by measuring the “efficiency gap.” https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12542&context=journal_articles https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...
odammit 9y ago
So I’ve got a question for you legal scholars. If it’s unconstitutional does that mean the people behind it broke laws or is this simply the court citing why the map was rejected?
- matt4077 9y ago
  These cases are civil, not criminal. Losing such a case does not by itself imply "guilt" in the criminal sense, nor does it carry the stigma attached to a criminal conviction. And even though in the US such cases are often addressed to a single official, they ate sued in their professional capability. That means their legal bills, and any monetary judgements, are paid by the government. All that doesn't preclude voters to draw their own conclusions. But you would have to look at every case individually: this case is pretty obvious, and it fits well with the existing narrative of the Republican party cutting corners to subvert basic mechanisms of democracy. But even actions that are well-intentioned and completely benign in their effects will occasionally be struck down by the courts when, for example, they are enacted by an agency when the courts believe legislative action is required.
- torstenvl 9y ago
  Taking an official action that is then ruled unconstitutional is typically not a criminal violation, though sometimes a criminal statute is enacted to further protect constitutional rights (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 243 makes it a federal crime to exclude jurors on the basis of race or color).
freen 9y ago
There is a simple, game theoretically optimal solution to gerrymandering: an iterative process of I cut, you choose. https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/november/i-cut-you-choose-cake-cutting-protocol-inspires-solution-to-gerrymandering.html https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/november/i-cu...
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  This seems to assume a two-party system, which is probably pragmatic but maybe not totally optimal in a bigger sense.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    Well in the US, we have a two-party system, so we wouldn't exactly want to apply a solution that's optimal for a multi-party system.
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      We have a de facto two-party system because that's the outcome of a FPP voting system. Nowhere is the two party system codified and nowhere is it declared optimal or even desirable. Point being, optimizing districting to maintain a 2-party system may not be desirable, even if that's the system we've fallen into. We could change voting systems to introduce more viable parties (which has it's own problems - look at unstable governments in Europe based on oddball alliances).
      - vidarh 9y ago
        > (which has it's own problems - look at unstable governments in Europe based on oddball alliances). That's not a problem, that's a feature. It ensures the parties need to learn to cooperate and compromise to get things through when voters are not in firm agreement. As a result you get continuity: It's rare to get the kind of drastic shifts that you get in the US when the balance shifts between the Republicans and Democrats, because it is rare for a single party to get an absolute majority, and so alliances shift with voting patterns, and the negotiated compromises tends to have to reflect a wider range of interests or not get passed. A lot of places this leads to a tradition of broad compromises to ensure lasting reforms that won't just get undone by the next government. So while the specific governments may not sit as tightly, I'd argue it tends to lead to a lot more stability in government direction.
nsnick 9y ago
It seems crazy that we elect representatives based on geography. Can't we elect representatives based on some other grouping? Why is there an assumption that my interests are aligned with people in geographic proximity to me?
- boulos 9y ago
  Because many of the expenses are localized... Roads, schools, extra sales tax, etc. are all things that a geographically dense group may decide differently from another. Representatives for San Francisco rightly understand that we have different priorities from say the people of Fresno. I understand it's probably not the primary key for how you or I think, but it is a fairly reasonable approximation for spending policies.
  - nsnick 9y ago
    That is an argument for local government not for how we elect our representatives to a national body. Do we really want representatives pulling spending to a particular geographic region? It seems to me that people in San Francisco have more in common with people in New York than people in Fresno. Even cities may not be appropriate to divide up the population. Maybe we should divide representation by occupation, education level, or wealth. After all geography is mostly just a proxy for wealth. A good first step would be proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
    - Wohlf 9y ago
      This is literally the reason we have a bicameral legislature. One represents the state, the other represents the local populations.
      - goialoq 9y ago
        That's not true. We have a bicameral legislature because the smaller colonies negotiated for it at the start of the Union as a way to increase their power (smaller population -> Senate gives disproportionate power), at a time where the People were largely ignored and the balance of power was among the aristocrats.
jay-anderson 9y ago
Feels like we need to get away from geographic based representation at the state level. In a hypothetical state where voters of parties are evenly distributed geographically we would end up with the majority party always winning anyway no matter how the district lines are drawn. This feels like the end goal of gerrymandering -- it's just that since party voters aren't distributed evenly geographically they need to draw odd districts to get the desired distributions. Switching to a system where as a state we pick based on party representation or as a whole pick N candidates (something like they do in parts of Europe I believe) seems preferable and renders gerrymandering ineffective because there are no districts to draw. Hopefully we'd get representation based on the voters being represented with this style of system.
- pas 9y ago
  The important thing is to allow ranked voting, which would help with the current duopoly in US politics. And of course drawing lines on a map rarely helps with fairness.
  - Armisael16 9y ago
    There has to be some limit. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Californians to rank every competitor for 53 seats.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Party list systems reward party insiders you don't get a direct say in who represents you which is the down side.
seanalltogether 9y ago
While DailyKos isn't exactly an unbiased source, I did find the maps shown in their article to help illustrate the issue well. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/27/1579905/-These-three-maps-show-just-how-effectively-gerrymandering-can-swing-election-outcomes https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/27/1579905/-These-t...
teilo 9y ago
To be fair, gerrymandering has been practiced by both parties for centuries. But the NC case was particularly egregious.
IgorPartola 9y ago
So I saw one discussion where someone pointed out that gerrymandered districts tend to backfire spectacularly. Basically as soon as there is any meaningful shift in population, the districts that were carefully crafted to be safe for a specific party flip overnight with little warning. It's a thing you do to win short term gains, but you can't keep doing it over and over. It's also a great example of politicians choosing their voters. If we are going for this system, why not just do a state-wide popular vote election and choose the top N people as winners? Also, gerrymandering seems responsible for the candidates sliding further into extremism. Basically if you run in a freshly created district that you are reasonably sure will go to your party, your real competition isn't the Dem/Rep who is running against you. It's your opponents in the primary. So if you are a Democrat running against a Republican in a close to 50/50 split, you might be compelled to become more centrist to steal some votes. But if you are only concerned about the primaries, you will try to be the Democratiest Democrat ever.
- frandroid 9y ago
  > It's a thing you do to win short term gains, but you can't keep doing it over and over. They redraw the map every 10 years, and they do do it over and over. Sure, sometimes demos shift, but even then it's a crap shoot as to whether enough people move, and if those people move in are of a different party. > state-wide popular vote election That's party-list proportional representation. It's done in many countries, but not in the U.S. or countries of the British Commonwealth. Any U.S. state could decide to adopt it though...
tboyd47 9y ago
Here's a link to the actual opinion, which is pretty interesting if you're into political history and constitutional law: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rucho-opinion.pdf http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rucho-opinion....
grzm 9y ago
538 has recently produced a podcast series† that dives quite deeply into the question of gerrymandering. I found it really insightful and helpful in understanding a lot of the issues involved. They address North Carolina in particular‡, as well as Wisconsin, California, Arizona, among others. I've come away with a much deeper understanding, from a variety of perspectives. † https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ ‡ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-gerrymandering-the-best-way-to-make-sure-black-voters-are-represented/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-gerrymandering-the-b...
maxxxxx 9y ago
What I don't get is that the US seems to be trying to push its political system to the absolute limit. Since I came to the US there is this constant push for impeaching the sitting president, disputing election results, extreme gerrymandering and all the other nonsense going on. This is the climate that breeds a strongman dictator that "cleans up" all the mess. Has it always been that way and will get worked out or is the US determined to destroy its institutions?
- nkozyra 9y ago
  In theory much of the country is designed to be malleable and fault-tolerant. Checks and balances exist to prevent one branch from overpowering others, but the malleable nature of the country means there are mechanisms to push the dial of what powers each branch has. So the reality is at present a strongman wouldn't have the mechanisms to clean up the mess. Gridlock is - in a way - by design.
- gmiller123456 9y ago
  This is really just the effect of the population (and by effect politicians) becoming more polarized. There has been a definite trend towards parties becoming more and more polarized ever since the end of WW II [1]. [1] https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    That's kind of expected over time in a stable two-party system; the periods of declining polarization are actually the periods just before partisan realignments, where the divides underlying old coalitions are losing salience, so the major parties are less coherent. After WWII (or, really, FDR's first campaign) the party system entered a long realignment along what became the modern American left/right axis which was basically completed in the early 1990s. Which is why polarization increased throughout the post-WWII period, but also why it was turbocharged from the Clinton era on.
- lurr 9y ago
  No. It's the republicans for the last couple decades. Institutionally things are starting to break down because of a combination of poor design and poor implementation. But there are so very many people who will argue that the current system is a feature not a bug.
mr_toad 9y ago
As an outsider, two observations: 1. Letting politicians determine electorate boundaries is just a dumb idea. Who thought that could possibly work? 2. Non-proportional representation belongs in the age of horses and telegrams.
- Clubber 9y ago
  >Who thought that could possibly work? The politicians that voted it into law, of course.
0xWilliam 9y ago
Cool politics!

277 points by kyleblarson 9y ago

In related news, the NC Legislature is also trying to completely overhaul the judicial structure including redrawing the judicial districts. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article192867294.html http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politic...

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
You mean the election-proof Republican majority will be allowed to staff the courts with Republican judges who will look the other way at their gerrymandering? Brilliant!

cjslep 9y ago

Born and raised in NC: Can't say I am surprised.

SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago

Related: North Carolina is no longer a democracy http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.h... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carolina-not-democracy-elections-cuba-iran-venezuela-gop-a7494561.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carol... http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/23/north_carolina_doesn_t_really_qualify_as_a_democracy_anymore.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/23/north_caro...

sp332 9y ago
And a counterpoint, also on Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/the_bogus_claim_that_north_carolina_is_no_longer_a_democracy.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- travmatt 9y ago
  I don’t understand the legitimacy of the criticisms that this article is leveling at the former. I can’t tell why it’s saying anything more than “I don’t like this study therefore it’s wrong and stupid and dangerous.” As it stands now, North Carolina has an electoral system that gives the minority party a veto proof absolute majority in their legislative branch, which seems like the opposite of democracy. I’d think the criticism would be more honest if it engaged with the facts plainly, instead of basing itself on just the personal opinions of the author.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Any study that puts North Korea that high on a measure of democracy is going to take a serious credibility hit. Also according to the same paper, there are many states that score lower than NC on the same scale. So the first article calling out NC cherry-picked data from a questionable study.
    - travmatt 9y ago
      Again I’m just not seeing any engagement with actual data beyond - “I don’t like this study so obviously it’s flawed and you must agree with me because fairness.” I’ll put it more simply, again. North Carolina has an electoral system that gives the minority party an absolute veto proof majority of their congress. In my view that is incompatible with democracy, and I don’t understand why I should give any credence to a criticism who can’t engage with that point honestly and forthrightly. I’m open to hearing more about alternative opinions, but for me that requires a better argument.
      - sp332 9y ago
        I don’t understand why I should give any credence to a criticism who can’t engage with that point honestly and forthrightly. That's exactly why the original article can be dismissed. Of course there's a lot wrong in NC but no one has to engage data that is put forward in bad faith. Find (or write) a "forthright" argument first.
fortythirteen 9y ago
A completely biased report. Yes, gerrymandering is insane in NC, but it's actually pretty well distributed between both parties. Raleigh is gerrymandered to the Republicans and Charlotte and Fayetteville are for rigged for the Democrats. The rest of the state is pretty much full-on red, so the majority Republican legislature truly reflects the state as a democratic-republic. NC has Voter ID laws, which were a huge part of the x/100 score given. Literally every other developed country (and most undeveloped countries) in the world require ID to vote, but somehow it's "undemocratic", among other outrageous things, if you try to do it in the U.S.
- IanDrake 9y ago
  Relevant: https://youtu.be/odB1wWPqSlE https://youtu.be/odB1wWPqSlE
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    I know, I know, down vote me because it’s not PC to point out that leftist thinking is racist.
    - dang 9y ago
      Complaints about voting break the HN guidelines, and so does ideological flamebait and race-baiting. Please don't do any of these things here, regardless of ideology. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- andrewaylett 9y ago
  The UK (which is -- at least for the moment -- usually considered "developed") doesn't require ID to vote.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > Literally every other developed country (and most undeveloped countries) in the world require ID to vote Well, the UK doesn't. And most other developed countries have proper national mandatory ID systems where everyone has an ID. People would complain a lot less about the ID requirement if the ID was equally easy to get for all voters, which it isn't.

shove 9y ago

I'm from NC and was arrested (twice -- for 2nd degree trespass) while protesting these clowns. Make no mistake, the crass disregard for the democratic process on display in NC is a model coming soon to a state near you :( While rulings like this are good news, what of the laws passed by these unconstitutionally "elected" bodies during the last decade? The damage (to our school system for example) is lasting and won't be undone by a mere SCOTUS rulings.

fortythirteen 9y ago
What the elected, Republican majority legislature voted for is not "crass disregard for the democratic process". It's actually the democratic process. If the legislature passes a bill that's unconstitutional, then it's up to the judicial branch to rectify that. By population, NC is a 50/50 red/blue state. Even by county, which is what a non-gerrymandered legislature would look like, it's all red outside of Charlotte and Raleigh, and 50/50 in places like Greensboro or Fayetteville. I'm against HB-2 as well, but it's up to the judicial to rectify that.
- Harimwakairi 9y ago
  > What the elected, Republican majority legislature voted for is not "crass disregard for the democratic process". The fact that the judiciary has the power to stop them does not make what they did any more or less acceptable. Gerrymandering the state specifically to subvert the will of the voting population is crass disregard for the democratic process.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    Which is why the judiciary deemed it unconstitutional! You make my point for me.
    - cardamomo 9y ago
      It should not be the goal of any elected official or member our federal or state governments to pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions. I agree with you that judicial review is an important tool to remove such laws after they've been passed, but the current trend in U.S. federal and state legislatures is to find both blatant and subtle ways to circumvent our constitutions.

rayiner 9y ago

The opinion, which does not appear to be linked in the NYT article, is here: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/CC_LWV_v_Rucho_MemorandumOpinion_01.09.18.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work.... Interestingly, all three judges, including Judge Osteen, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed that the map was unconstitutional and the legislature had to try again. Judge Osteen's dissent was only in part, and addressed the first amendment claim and the appointment of a special master to oversee the second attempt at drawing the map.

MithrilTuxedo 9y ago
Thank you, I was looking for that. Does anyone know: is it typical for the NYT to not link to court decisions? I'm used to such links in online news stories.

koolba 9y ago

Is there a particular standard used to determine that a given map is considered gerrymandered? Or is it like porn, i.e., you know it when you see it?

sp332 9y ago
Nothing official, but people are working on quantifying it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts-law/gerrymander/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts... Even if it's not perfect, it's useful to point out the most egregious cases.
Redoubts 9y ago
That's the million dollar question, and it's likely to be the end point of the SCOTUS discussion on the matter. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-trial/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-tr... > In a 2004 opinion, [Justice Anthony Kennedy] expressed alarm at the practice of extreme partisan gerrymandering but said the court should hold off on outlawing it. He also left the door open to ruling differently in the future, as long as lawyers provided a suitable way to measure when gerrymandering goes too far. He said that without that measurement, the court runs the risk of becoming too involved in a decision-making process that is legally mandated to state legislatures.
dboreham 9y ago
As you might imagine, it is possible to consider this as a purely mathematical problem and to thereby come up with measures of gerrymandered-ness. It is a widely studied field. e.g.: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/24334/Solbrig_washington_0250O_12376.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/h... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Dube/publication/315772532_Mathematical_Characteristics_of_District_Boundary_Lines_as_Indicators_of_Partisan_Gerrymandering_in_US_House_Elections/links/58e3b74ea6fdcc86ade771a4/Mathematical-Characteristics-of-District-Boundary-Lines-as-Indicators-of-Partisan-Gerrymandering-in-US-House-Elections.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Dube/publicatio...
- 9y ago

calimac 9y ago

https://www.projectveritas.com/video/new-video-twitter-senior-engineer-more-than-happy-to-release-private-trump-messages-to-doj/ https://www.projectveritas.com/video/new-video-twitter-senio...

jzylstra 9y ago

Regarding the last two paragraphs of the article, what is the typical way that past presidents are meant to be addressed? Contrast the curt 'Mr. Obama' with President Jimmy Carter and President George W. Bush. >In addition to Judge Wynn, an appointee of Mr. Obama’s, Senior Judge W. Earl Britt of the Federal District Court in Raleigh joined the opinion. Judge Britt was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. >Judge William L. Osteen Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush and sits on the federal bench in Greensboro, said he agreed that the existing map violated the 14th Amendment, but he disputed other parts of Judge Wynn’s opinion, including the decision to appoint an independent expert to begin preparing an alternative map.

nxc18 9y ago
'President' is proper and correct.
- zeveb 9y ago
  I think it's more appropriate to only refer to someone by his current position, not by his former positions: President Trump, Secretary Tillerson, Senator Warren — but Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, Mrs. Clinton &c. America is a republic, not a monarchy or aristocracy: titles are for a limited duration, not for life.
  - nxc18 9y ago
    I personally agree, but that would require a culture shift. I find it problematic that it is used inconsistently - all presidents other than Obama keep their titles for life. Maybe only white presidents keep their title for life? I’d rather see that disparity tackled first, whether that means everyone keeps their title or no one.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      See the other comments for the real, benign, explanation. This also seems to be a good occasion to encourage people to work from an assumption of good faith. It's especially fitting considering this is the New York Times, a publication that, even if it were racist (which it is not), would probably be smart enough not to let it shine through in the most obvious way possible.

matt_s 9y ago

One article I read said that there is a 30% Republican voter base that is covered by 76% of the congressional maps. They redrew the maps so they would have 10 seats and Dems would have 3. In the past I've read the Democrats have done similar things. As a software engineer, isn't there some way to draw maps which balance out demographics programmatically? While taking into consideration population, rural, suburban, urban areas, etc. Shouldn't there be a national policy/process that is followed? It would make some sense to abolish recording what party people affiliate with. It really serves no purpose. Let people vote in both parties primaries.

derwiki 9y ago
Software would be relatively easy, enacting the policy difficult. Who would want to relinquish their power to a computer?
- wybiral 9y ago
  And the concerns of bias in the algorithm could still be there. As would the fear of hacking. Neither seem as big of an issue as flat-out intentional gerrymandering and could be mitigated by open review process. But it's unprecedented which makes it hard to enact without a lot of momentum.
shove 9y ago
It's very true that in the past the Dems have behaved similarly. I used to agree (also a software engineer) that this is a puzzle that ought to be solveable with weighted voronoi diagrams or somesuch but then I read: https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/10/17/the-problem-of-defining-gerrymandering-and-what-can-be-done/ https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/10/17/the-problem-of-d...
samch 9y ago
I think the current analytical mechanism to achieve balance is by measuring the “efficiency gap.” https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12542&context=journal_articles https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...

odammit 9y ago

So I’ve got a question for you legal scholars. If it’s unconstitutional does that mean the people behind it broke laws or is this simply the court citing why the map was rejected?

matt4077 9y ago
These cases are civil, not criminal. Losing such a case does not by itself imply "guilt" in the criminal sense, nor does it carry the stigma attached to a criminal conviction. And even though in the US such cases are often addressed to a single official, they ate sued in their professional capability. That means their legal bills, and any monetary judgements, are paid by the government. All that doesn't preclude voters to draw their own conclusions. But you would have to look at every case individually: this case is pretty obvious, and it fits well with the existing narrative of the Republican party cutting corners to subvert basic mechanisms of democracy. But even actions that are well-intentioned and completely benign in their effects will occasionally be struck down by the courts when, for example, they are enacted by an agency when the courts believe legislative action is required.
torstenvl 9y ago
Taking an official action that is then ruled unconstitutional is typically not a criminal violation, though sometimes a criminal statute is enacted to further protect constitutional rights (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 243 makes it a federal crime to exclude jurors on the basis of race or color).

freen 9y ago

There is a simple, game theoretically optimal solution to gerrymandering: an iterative process of I cut, you choose. https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/november/i-cut-you-choose-cake-cutting-protocol-inspires-solution-to-gerrymandering.html https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/november/i-cu...

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
This seems to assume a two-party system, which is probably pragmatic but maybe not totally optimal in a bigger sense.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Well in the US, we have a two-party system, so we wouldn't exactly want to apply a solution that's optimal for a multi-party system.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    We have a de facto two-party system because that's the outcome of a FPP voting system. Nowhere is the two party system codified and nowhere is it declared optimal or even desirable. Point being, optimizing districting to maintain a 2-party system may not be desirable, even if that's the system we've fallen into. We could change voting systems to introduce more viable parties (which has it's own problems - look at unstable governments in Europe based on oddball alliances).
    - vidarh 9y ago
      > (which has it's own problems - look at unstable governments in Europe based on oddball alliances). That's not a problem, that's a feature. It ensures the parties need to learn to cooperate and compromise to get things through when voters are not in firm agreement. As a result you get continuity: It's rare to get the kind of drastic shifts that you get in the US when the balance shifts between the Republicans and Democrats, because it is rare for a single party to get an absolute majority, and so alliances shift with voting patterns, and the negotiated compromises tends to have to reflect a wider range of interests or not get passed. A lot of places this leads to a tradition of broad compromises to ensure lasting reforms that won't just get undone by the next government. So while the specific governments may not sit as tightly, I'd argue it tends to lead to a lot more stability in government direction.

nsnick 9y ago

It seems crazy that we elect representatives based on geography. Can't we elect representatives based on some other grouping? Why is there an assumption that my interests are aligned with people in geographic proximity to me?

boulos 9y ago
Because many of the expenses are localized... Roads, schools, extra sales tax, etc. are all things that a geographically dense group may decide differently from another. Representatives for San Francisco rightly understand that we have different priorities from say the people of Fresno. I understand it's probably not the primary key for how you or I think, but it is a fairly reasonable approximation for spending policies.
- nsnick 9y ago
  That is an argument for local government not for how we elect our representatives to a national body. Do we really want representatives pulling spending to a particular geographic region? It seems to me that people in San Francisco have more in common with people in New York than people in Fresno. Even cities may not be appropriate to divide up the population. Maybe we should divide representation by occupation, education level, or wealth. After all geography is mostly just a proxy for wealth. A good first step would be proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
  - Wohlf 9y ago
    This is literally the reason we have a bicameral legislature. One represents the state, the other represents the local populations.
    - goialoq 9y ago
      That's not true. We have a bicameral legislature because the smaller colonies negotiated for it at the start of the Union as a way to increase their power (smaller population -> Senate gives disproportionate power), at a time where the People were largely ignored and the balance of power was among the aristocrats.

jay-anderson 9y ago

Feels like we need to get away from geographic based representation at the state level. In a hypothetical state where voters of parties are evenly distributed geographically we would end up with the majority party always winning anyway no matter how the district lines are drawn. This feels like the end goal of gerrymandering -- it's just that since party voters aren't distributed evenly geographically they need to draw odd districts to get the desired distributions. Switching to a system where as a state we pick based on party representation or as a whole pick N candidates (something like they do in parts of Europe I believe) seems preferable and renders gerrymandering ineffective because there are no districts to draw. Hopefully we'd get representation based on the voters being represented with this style of system.

pas 9y ago
The important thing is to allow ranked voting, which would help with the current duopoly in US politics. And of course drawing lines on a map rarely helps with fairness.
- Armisael16 9y ago
  There has to be some limit. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Californians to rank every competitor for 53 seats.
walshemj 9y ago
Party list systems reward party insiders you don't get a direct say in who represents you which is the down side.

seanalltogether 9y ago

While DailyKos isn't exactly an unbiased source, I did find the maps shown in their article to help illustrate the issue well. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/27/1579905/-These-three-maps-show-just-how-effectively-gerrymandering-can-swing-election-outcomes https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/27/1579905/-These-t...

teilo 9y ago

To be fair, gerrymandering has been practiced by both parties for centuries. But the NC case was particularly egregious.

IgorPartola 9y ago

So I saw one discussion where someone pointed out that gerrymandered districts tend to backfire spectacularly. Basically as soon as there is any meaningful shift in population, the districts that were carefully crafted to be safe for a specific party flip overnight with little warning. It's a thing you do to win short term gains, but you can't keep doing it over and over. It's also a great example of politicians choosing their voters. If we are going for this system, why not just do a state-wide popular vote election and choose the top N people as winners? Also, gerrymandering seems responsible for the candidates sliding further into extremism. Basically if you run in a freshly created district that you are reasonably sure will go to your party, your real competition isn't the Dem/Rep who is running against you. It's your opponents in the primary. So if you are a Democrat running against a Republican in a close to 50/50 split, you might be compelled to become more centrist to steal some votes. But if you are only concerned about the primaries, you will try to be the Democratiest Democrat ever.

frandroid 9y ago
> It's a thing you do to win short term gains, but you can't keep doing it over and over. They redraw the map every 10 years, and they do do it over and over. Sure, sometimes demos shift, but even then it's a crap shoot as to whether enough people move, and if those people move in are of a different party. > state-wide popular vote election That's party-list proportional representation. It's done in many countries, but not in the U.S. or countries of the British Commonwealth. Any U.S. state could decide to adopt it though...

tboyd47 9y ago

Here's a link to the actual opinion, which is pretty interesting if you're into political history and constitutional law: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rucho-opinion.pdf http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rucho-opinion....

grzm 9y ago

538 has recently produced a podcast series† that dives quite deeply into the question of gerrymandering. I found it really insightful and helpful in understanding a lot of the issues involved. They address North Carolina in particular‡, as well as Wisconsin, California, Arizona, among others. I've come away with a much deeper understanding, from a variety of perspectives. † https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ ‡ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-gerrymandering-the-best-way-to-make-sure-black-voters-are-represented/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-gerrymandering-the-b...

maxxxxx 9y ago

What I don't get is that the US seems to be trying to push its political system to the absolute limit. Since I came to the US there is this constant push for impeaching the sitting president, disputing election results, extreme gerrymandering and all the other nonsense going on. This is the climate that breeds a strongman dictator that "cleans up" all the mess. Has it always been that way and will get worked out or is the US determined to destroy its institutions?

nkozyra 9y ago
In theory much of the country is designed to be malleable and fault-tolerant. Checks and balances exist to prevent one branch from overpowering others, but the malleable nature of the country means there are mechanisms to push the dial of what powers each branch has. So the reality is at present a strongman wouldn't have the mechanisms to clean up the mess. Gridlock is - in a way - by design.
gmiller123456 9y ago
This is really just the effect of the population (and by effect politicians) becoming more polarized. There has been a definite trend towards parties becoming more and more polarized ever since the end of WW II [1]. [1] https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  That's kind of expected over time in a stable two-party system; the periods of declining polarization are actually the periods just before partisan realignments, where the divides underlying old coalitions are losing salience, so the major parties are less coherent. After WWII (or, really, FDR's first campaign) the party system entered a long realignment along what became the modern American left/right axis which was basically completed in the early 1990s. Which is why polarization increased throughout the post-WWII period, but also why it was turbocharged from the Clinton era on.
lurr 9y ago
No. It's the republicans for the last couple decades. Institutionally things are starting to break down because of a combination of poor design and poor implementation. But there are so very many people who will argue that the current system is a feature not a bug.

mr_toad 9y ago

As an outsider, two observations: 1. Letting politicians determine electorate boundaries is just a dumb idea. Who thought that could possibly work? 2. Non-proportional representation belongs in the age of horses and telegrams.

Clubber 9y ago
>Who thought that could possibly work? The politicians that voted it into law, of course.

0xWilliam 9y ago

Cool politics!