It certainly seems that someone has not only noticed something, but is unhappy about it. They’re speaking out, and *that* is a surprise. It seemed that everyone was more involved with stroking Trump’s ego than pointing out all the wrong things he does. How about going after schools for being “woke”? What kind of crap is that? From AlterNet:
Even the editors of the conservative Wall Street Journal are placing blame for the redistricting arms race at President Donald Trump’s feet. On Thursday, the Journal lamented that both Texas Republicans and California Democrats are on track to pass new maps that aim to shut the opposing party out of power until at least the 2030 U.S. Census. And while they acknowledged that leaders of both parties were complicit, the paper assigned the bulk of the blame to Trump himself.
The WSJ is speaking out. I’m stunned! Since when did anyone look at the side opposite of Trump? Besides our blogs, that is. *We* aren’t afraid to speak out, and will continue. But… the WSJ. That’s not a fly-by-night publican. They have a history. Democracy has Died in Darkness over at the Washington Post. Other media isn’t any better. Let’s not get into Fox “News” (propaganda?).
“President Trump started this latest gerrymander brawl by urging Lone Star Republicans to redraw their Congressional map to mitigate potential GOP losses in next year’s midterm elections,” the Journal’s editors wrote. “His Justice Department also threatened to challenge the state’s existing map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Ya think? Well, at least they are saying out loud what the rest of us have been screaming about since the whole mess started. And California is giving its voters a choice. But they are responding to Texas. If another red state tries to do the same, another blue state will do so also. If Dementia Trump hadn’t been so paranoid about losing control of Congress, it (most likely) wouldn’t have happened. The blame *does* lie on Trump.
“It is at least more democratic for elected lawmakers to redraw maps than politically unaccountable judges,” the editorial read. “Politicians reduce political competition when they choose their voters, but it’s nothing new. Patrick Henry tried to gerrymander James Madison out of a Congressional seat in 1789.” “Gerrymanders reduce political competition, and they’re getting worse over time,” the paper continued. “Congress could set limits on the practice, but incumbents want safer seats. Unless voters rebel, it will continue. At least the political cynicism is no longer hiding behind false flags.”
Indeed. I guess we should be grateful, even though we aren’t. It’s all right up in our faces. No more hiding in dimly lit back rooms in the back of a bar. It’s all out in daylight. And Trump has been president for 7 months. More to come, I’m sure.
Friends, I know everybody begs you for money. I promise you that of all of the outlets bugging you for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a bunch of old, disabled people, with the exception of one writer in his mid-50s. But the rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the ability to keep going in our quest to tell the truth about Trump and see democracy survive. If you can help, please do. Thanks. Ursula
I still don’t understand why the simplest lawsuit to stop Texas wasn’t brought up: Unconstitutional redistricting done OUTSIDE the Constitutionally-described procedure.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . . .” (Final portion omitted as it described each State’s representation prior to the first Census.)
The ONLY reason that redistricting has ever occurred more than one time during a cycle is to CORRECT illegally designed districts which failed to provide fair representation in the first place. There has NEVER been a valid reason to redistrict between censuses (and even when the districts were ordered to be redrawn by the courts, the previous Census results were used in the design). Even the dips#!+s like Scalia and Thomas should be able to recognize how UNCONSTITUTIONAL Texas’s actions have been.
The only reason I can think of for not challenging the Texas redistricting is that our Supreme Court has become woefully unreliable where enforcing our Constitution is concerned. They even find invisible clauses that no one else can.