3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThen 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 agoThen 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 agoelect 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.