6 ms·

What the elected, Republican majority legislature voted for is not "crass disregard for the democratic process". It's actually the democratic process. If the le

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.
  - nikkev 9y ago
    You're grossly missing the point. If your kid steals money from your wallet, you catch them and punish them. That does not make what they did right just because they were punished and you deemed their behavior unacceptable. What if you didn't find out? Or what if you decided to look the other way because it was only five dollars?
    - heavenlyblue 9y ago
      Sadly, but a morally speaking you're then getting into the same territory as it is with the sex offenders; who having offended once are stained for the rest of their lives. There is a reason why there's a statute of limitations, but neither does it mean that the current punishment is enough. Let's talk children, as you say - you would punish a child, yet you would not mark him as a morally corrupted person forever; the punishment just needs to be severe enough.
stupidcar 9y ago
Total nonsense. While it's true that in a liberal democracy the judiciary is supposed to be a check against the power of the legislative and executive branches, its mere existence doesn't give them carte blanche to ignore basic principles of sound democracy. These people are representatives. They are supposed to represent the interests of all their constituents. Deliberately redrawing the electoral map in an attempt to help voters only of their own party is a gross violation of basic democratic norms. It is putting party before country in the worst possible way.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101. What you're missing is that the laws being overturned here are themselves directly concerned with the democratic process.
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? What do you think a constitutional amendment is?
      - unclebucknasty 9y ago
        >Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
        dang 9y ago
        Please don't do flamewars on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
unclebucknasty 9y ago
To quibble with your logic, if the legislature were to consistently pass laws that directly concerned the democratic process (i.e. voting) and those laws had to be overturned as unconstitutional, then their actions could certainly be construed as a disregard for the democratic process. That another element of the democratic process (the courts) intervened to correct the legislature's disregard does not exonerate that disregard.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Then it's up to the people to elect different representatives that promise not to do that. That's democracy. You don't get to blow up the system because it's not functioning how you want it to. You're supposed to work in the system. The judiciary is correctly functioning by declaring this gerrymandering unconstitutional.
  - pohl 9y ago
    Then it's up to the people to elect different representatives that promise not to do that. It sounds to me as though you have not fully internalized that gerrymandering – and other associated voter suppression tactics – are precisely designed to thwart the remedy you recommend here.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    elect different representatives that promise not to do that If that’s your response, I assess that you’ve either reached the point of supporting a narrative, or you don’t understand the impact of gerrymandering, which is specifically designed to work around this. You snarkily mentioned something was “U. S. government 101”, which it wasn’t, but gerrymandering they taught me in grade school.
zeveb 9y ago
> If the legislature passes a bill that's unconstitutional, then it's up to the judicial branch to rectify that. I don't really agree with that, nor do I think does the Constitution. The legislature may not pass laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution; the executive may not execute actions which are inconsistent with the Constitution and the law; the judicial may not render decisions which are inconsistent with (firstly) the Constitution and (secondly) the law. As a practical matter this means that the judicial branch often is reviewing the law, but it doesn't absolve the other two branches of obeying their oaths of office.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  And who decides that the legistlature passed "laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution"?
  - mfringel 9y ago
    The legislators themselves, as per the oath taken by every legislator in North Carolina, as noted in the NC State Constitution: Article 6, section 7.[1] Sec. 7. Oath. Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath: "I, _______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as _______________, so help me God." [1] https://www.ncleg.net/legislation/constitution/article6.html https://www.ncleg.net/legislation/constitution/article6.html
    - wffurr 9y ago
      There should be sanction for violating one's oath. Legislators that directly undermine by the democratic process by gerrymandering and other means should be removed from office.
  - zeveb 9y ago
    Likewise, who decides if the judicial branch has rendered decisions which are inconsistent with the Constitution? It's turtles all the way down: the legislature's laws are reviewed by judges or ignored by the executive; judges & members of the executive branch may be impeached by the legislature; ultimately the voters decide what they're willing to let their government get away with.
shove 9y ago
To quote Trump, "wrong"
tjstankus 9y ago
I think your argument is focused too far along the timeline. Yes, the Republican majority was elected. What's in dispute is the legitimacy of how they came to be elected, given the proven racist bias of how districts came to be. Different (fairer) districting might not change the Republican majority status, but it probably wouldn't be so lopsided. (BTW: Asheville is almost completely blue, too.)
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Yup, I forgot about Asheville. > proven racist bias That goes both ways (Charlotte, Greensboro and Fayetteville). I really don't think the Democrats are going to be happy with the outcome of a rebalancing, because the Republicans will still have a huge legislative majority, maybe even more so.
  - hyperpape 9y ago
    How do you get to a huge legislative majority from the voting pattern, except via unrepresentative districts?
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      When you divide the state up geographically instead of by population, it's way red (as is with every state in the union). While the current gerrymandering is ridiculous, I don't think it has much of an effect on the overall outcome.
      - FireBeyond 9y ago
        While I get some of the merits of this method in the beginning, it really does subvert democracy. "Los Angeles and New York get less proportional representation, just because many people choose to live there." "What about the people of rural South Dakota, don't they get a vote?" Absolutely they do. Geographic systems are based on a flawed predicate. Democracy should be based on "1 person, 1 vote", not "1 square mile/foot, 1 vote".
      - 9y ago
tw04 9y ago
So if the Republican majority legislature voted Trump the King of North Carolina with unchallenged authoritarian rule, that would be your idea of "the democratic process"? A democratic body taking action isn't "part of the democratic process" just because they're the ones doing it. That's not how it works.
mfringel 9y ago
In an elected legislature, the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. If the sitting legislature changes the districts in order to choose their voters, we move away from the ideal of an election.
IgorPartola 9y ago
This is some weapons grade bullshit. "The legislators can pass whatever unconstitutional law they want, so long as the judges are there as a failsafe." I lived in NC. The senators there that introduced a state constitutional amendment to deny marriage equality all ran in districts where they had no opponent running at all.
wffurr 9y ago
If the state is 50/50, why isn't the legislature? The whole point of the democratic process is for the lawmaking body to be representative of the people. One person, one vote. Gerrymandering undermines the very foundation of democracy.
mikestew 9y ago
If the legislature passes a bill that's unconstitutional, then it's up to the judicial branch to rectify that. Tell me you go ahead and stick your hand in table saws because the safety interlocks will save you, and I’ll accept this statement as a justification for such undemocratic behavior.
gglitch 9y ago
I'm reminded of a time in Chicago when I saw one of a group of three teenagers deliberately and casually drop his trash on the floor of a public bus. Both of his peers looked at him askance and he said, "What? I pay taxes." The existence of a body charged with cleaning up messes is not an excuse for acting in bad faith. _Nothing_ is an excuse for acting in bad faith.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Even by county, which is what a non-gerrymandered legislature would look like No, it's not; legislative districts must be equal size because of one-person-one-vote; counties very much are not equal size. What things look like by county has little to do with what a “non-gerrymandered” legislative map would look like (which isn't even a uniquely objectively answerable question, since while there are some clear established improper goals in districting, there's no single accepted standard for correct goals, so there is a very wide range of potential non-gerrymandered ways of districting, which produce very different maps.)

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.
- nikkev 9y ago
  You're grossly missing the point. If your kid steals money from your wallet, you catch them and punish them. That does not make what they did right just because they were punished and you deemed their behavior unacceptable. What if you didn't find out? Or what if you decided to look the other way because it was only five dollars?
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    Sadly, but a morally speaking you're then getting into the same territory as it is with the sex offenders; who having offended once are stained for the rest of their lives. There is a reason why there's a statute of limitations, but neither does it mean that the current punishment is enough. Let's talk children, as you say - you would punish a child, yet you would not mark him as a morally corrupted person forever; the punishment just needs to be severe enough.

stupidcar 9y ago

Total nonsense. While it's true that in a liberal democracy the judiciary is supposed to be a check against the power of the legislative and executive branches, its mere existence doesn't give them carte blanche to ignore basic principles of sound democracy. These people are representatives. They are supposed to represent the interests of all their constituents. Deliberately redrawing the electoral map in an attempt to help voters only of their own party is a gross violation of basic democratic norms. It is putting party before country in the worst possible way.

fortythirteen 9y ago
Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101. What you're missing is that the laws being overturned here are themselves directly concerned with the democratic process.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? What do you think a constitutional amendment is?
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      >Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't do flamewars on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

unclebucknasty 9y ago

To quibble with your logic, if the legislature were to consistently pass laws that directly concerned the democratic process (i.e. voting) and those laws had to be overturned as unconstitutional, then their actions could certainly be construed as a disregard for the democratic process. That another element of the democratic process (the courts) intervened to correct the legislature's disregard does not exonerate that disregard.

fortythirteen 9y ago
Then it's up to the people to elect different representatives that promise not to do that. That's democracy. You don't get to blow up the system because it's not functioning how you want it to. You're supposed to work in the system. The judiciary is correctly functioning by declaring this gerrymandering unconstitutional.
- pohl 9y ago
  Then it's up to the people to elect different representatives that promise not to do that. It sounds to me as though you have not fully internalized that gerrymandering – and other associated voter suppression tactics – are precisely designed to thwart the remedy you recommend here.
- mikestew 9y ago
  elect different representatives that promise not to do that If that’s your response, I assess that you’ve either reached the point of supporting a narrative, or you don’t understand the impact of gerrymandering, which is specifically designed to work around this. You snarkily mentioned something was “U. S. government 101”, which it wasn’t, but gerrymandering they taught me in grade school.

zeveb 9y ago

> If the legislature passes a bill that's unconstitutional, then it's up to the judicial branch to rectify that. I don't really agree with that, nor do I think does the Constitution. The legislature may not pass laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution; the executive may not execute actions which are inconsistent with the Constitution and the law; the judicial may not render decisions which are inconsistent with (firstly) the Constitution and (secondly) the law. As a practical matter this means that the judicial branch often is reviewing the law, but it doesn't absolve the other two branches of obeying their oaths of office.

fortythirteen 9y ago
And who decides that the legistlature passed "laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution"?
- mfringel 9y ago
  The legislators themselves, as per the oath taken by every legislator in North Carolina, as noted in the NC State Constitution: Article 6, section 7.[1] Sec. 7. Oath. Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath: "I, _______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as _______________, so help me God." [1] https://www.ncleg.net/legislation/constitution/article6.html https://www.ncleg.net/legislation/constitution/article6.html
  - wffurr 9y ago
    There should be sanction for violating one's oath. Legislators that directly undermine by the democratic process by gerrymandering and other means should be removed from office.
- zeveb 9y ago
  Likewise, who decides if the judicial branch has rendered decisions which are inconsistent with the Constitution? It's turtles all the way down: the legislature's laws are reviewed by judges or ignored by the executive; judges & members of the executive branch may be impeached by the legislature; ultimately the voters decide what they're willing to let their government get away with.

shove 9y ago

To quote Trump, "wrong"

tjstankus 9y ago

I think your argument is focused too far along the timeline. Yes, the Republican majority was elected. What's in dispute is the legitimacy of how they came to be elected, given the proven racist bias of how districts came to be. Different (fairer) districting might not change the Republican majority status, but it probably wouldn't be so lopsided. (BTW: Asheville is almost completely blue, too.)

fortythirteen 9y ago
Yup, I forgot about Asheville. > proven racist bias That goes both ways (Charlotte, Greensboro and Fayetteville). I really don't think the Democrats are going to be happy with the outcome of a rebalancing, because the Republicans will still have a huge legislative majority, maybe even more so.
- hyperpape 9y ago
  How do you get to a huge legislative majority from the voting pattern, except via unrepresentative districts?
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    When you divide the state up geographically instead of by population, it's way red (as is with every state in the union). While the current gerrymandering is ridiculous, I don't think it has much of an effect on the overall outcome.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      While I get some of the merits of this method in the beginning, it really does subvert democracy. "Los Angeles and New York get less proportional representation, just because many people choose to live there." "What about the people of rural South Dakota, don't they get a vote?" Absolutely they do. Geographic systems are based on a flawed predicate. Democracy should be based on "1 person, 1 vote", not "1 square mile/foot, 1 vote".
    - 9y ago

tw04 9y ago

So if the Republican majority legislature voted Trump the King of North Carolina with unchallenged authoritarian rule, that would be your idea of "the democratic process"? A democratic body taking action isn't "part of the democratic process" just because they're the ones doing it. That's not how it works.

mfringel 9y ago

In an elected legislature, the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. If the sitting legislature changes the districts in order to choose their voters, we move away from the ideal of an election.

IgorPartola 9y ago

This is some weapons grade bullshit. "The legislators can pass whatever unconstitutional law they want, so long as the judges are there as a failsafe." I lived in NC. The senators there that introduced a state constitutional amendment to deny marriage equality all ran in districts where they had no opponent running at all.

wffurr 9y ago

If the state is 50/50, why isn't the legislature? The whole point of the democratic process is for the lawmaking body to be representative of the people. One person, one vote. Gerrymandering undermines the very foundation of democracy.

mikestew 9y ago

If the legislature passes a bill that's unconstitutional, then it's up to the judicial branch to rectify that. Tell me you go ahead and stick your hand in table saws because the safety interlocks will save you, and I’ll accept this statement as a justification for such undemocratic behavior.

gglitch 9y ago

I'm reminded of a time in Chicago when I saw one of a group of three teenagers deliberately and casually drop his trash on the floor of a public bus. Both of his peers looked at him askance and he said, "What? I pay taxes." The existence of a body charged with cleaning up messes is not an excuse for acting in bad faith. _Nothing_ is an excuse for acting in bad faith.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Even by county, which is what a non-gerrymandered legislature would look like No, it's not; legislative districts must be equal size because of one-person-one-vote; counties very much are not equal size. What things look like by county has little to do with what a “non-gerrymandered” legislative map would look like (which isn't even a uniquely objectively answerable question, since while there are some clear established improper goals in districting, there's no single accepted standard for correct goals, so there is a very wide range of potential non-gerrymandered ways of districting, which produce very different maps.)