When visiting Shrewd'm with a laptop, it can be pleasant to hold Command (or Ctrl with Windows) and '+' a few times. The site scales to allow any font size, and the larger font can be pleasant to read even for Shrewds with perfect sight! For luxury Shrewdness, you can combine that with setting the browser to full screen. You'll then find yourself Shrewding a lot.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
Kevin Kiley is a GOP House member I have some respect for:
https://www.c-span.org/clip/us-house-of-representa...I'VE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD SAY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MID DECADE REDISTRICTING, IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN ANY STATE. AND I OPPOSED WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS TO GERRYMANDER THAT STATE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DECADE, AND I OPPOSED WHAT'S HAPPENED IN CALIFORNIA. I'VE OPPOSED THE EFFORTS THAT'S AFOOT IN OTHER STATES, AND I APPLAUD THE DECISION BY THE INDIANA STATE SENATE TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH A MID DECADE GERRYMANDER IN A FAIRLY OVERWHELMING VOTE YESTERDAY. THE FACT IS THAT GERRYMANDERING IS AN AFFRONT TO REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND TO DEMOCRACY. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW RUNS AGAINST THE DESIRES OF MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND CERTAINLY RUNS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY. I HAVE CALLED UPON THE LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE FOR MONTHS TO BRING THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR OR TO OTHERWISE REACH AN ARMISTICE IN THIS REDISTRICTING WAR. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP, FRANKLY ON BOTH SIDES, TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.etc...
No. of Recommendations: 1
... on the other hand, he's also a fan of charter schools, and a critic of CA's public school system. But, I don't know enough to say whether his criticism is valid or not.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nah, this kind of legislation is purely performative.
It accomplishes nothing that the legislatures couldn't already accomplish right now, simply by voting against redistricting attempts as they are attempted.
And, even if this legislation is passed, it can be revoked by future legislation as soon as a future legislature decides it wants to redistrict in contravention of the proposed law.
Further, this so called Republican shouldn't be talking at all about what's happening in Texas. He's only doing so because he's too weak to just do what he wants to try to do in California, he needs to justify it by referencing Texas.
Weak, useless, performative.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I agree that redistricting should only happen in the legislative session after a decennial census.
I also think gerrymandering for any purpose should be illegal.
Districts should be contiguous, compact, drawn not to diminish the voice of any group in the district.
Here's a difference between the Representative and me. He is in a position to introduce legislation to mandate his position. I am not. I am idly dreaming; he is clutching pearls.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'VE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD SAY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MID DECADE REDISTRICTING, IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN ANY STATE.
That states the issue as clearly as anyone has stared the issue.
If you can’t get behind this, you may be a fucking nazi (and your mother doesn’t love you anymore)
No. of Recommendations: 8
Districts should be contiguous, compact, drawn not to diminish the voice of any group in the district.
And the process of drawing the map should be overseen by non-partisan boards.
You know…. Those boards that Republicans view as kryptonite, and destroy as soon as they have a legislative majority.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I know the answer is probably 'hell no', but really...why not let computer programs with AI-assist draw the most logical, compact, fair and reasonable district boundaries?
I'm pretty sure others here will tell me why this is not a good idea, but...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Kevin Kiley is a GOP House member I have some respect for:
Yes, and no. I would have a lot more respect if he were a rep from Texas saying this instead of one from California.
Pete
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, and no. I would have a lot more respect if he were a rep from Texas saying this instead of one from California.
Great point.
No. of Recommendations: 9
And the process of drawing the map should be overseen by non-partisan boards.
For decades, Michigan's districts were drawn by the legislature. Michigan is purple. Statewide offices, like Gov, AG, SecState, switch back and forth routinely. But the GOP had a lock on the legislature for 40 years, because, in the words of a judge ruling on a suit, the districts were "gerrymandered to a historic degree".
The only time I have ever signed a petition was when I was flagged down, while walking into a car show. The guy had a petition to put a proposal on the ballot to take redistricting away from the legislature, and give the authority to a independent board. Hell yes, I signed.
The measure became "Proposal 2" on the 2018 ballot, and was approved by a vote of 61% of We The People. The old GOP majority in Lansing immediately went into a lame duck session to try to invalidate the clear choice of We The People, and enact laws to prevent We The People from ever changing the state Constitution again. Seems they have failed, as the independent board's districts are still in use, and Michigan has a narrowly divided House and Senate, with leadership that flicks one way, or the other, just as the state wide offices shift.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
wzambon,
What's wrong with mid-decade redistricting?
Notice that Kevin Riley doesn't actually say why it's supposedly "wrong" or "bad."
What's wrong with it?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Non-partisan boards is a chimera.
No such thing.
Redistricting is an inherently political act.
The way that perceived abuses of over-redistricting should be, and ARE, addressed, is through the political process.
And, we just had a perfect example of that in Indiana, where Republicans joined Democrats in voting down a redistricting plan favored by Trump (despite Trump being an all powerful evil Nazi God King).
"Non partisan board" is just a subterfuge for the politicians to not have to take responsibility for the outcome.
Just like in California. They had a non-partisan board until Newsom decided he wanted redistricting to be partisan again.
So non partisan is just nonsensical in this context.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's a dumb idea because A.I. is garbage in, garbage out, and will just reflect and incorporate the inherent biases of those who are programming it.
That's why ChatGPT rather notoriously identified Black people with Gorillas in the not too distance past.
Further, all your adjectives, in this context, are completely subjective and undefined.
"logical, compact, contiguous," all meaningless because you do not define them.
The devil is in the details, and Leftists don't give a rat's ass about the details.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who appoints the people on Michigan's "independent" redistricting boards?
What recourse does the electorate have should the "independent" boards act in a manner contrary to the public interest?
What just happened in California to their so-called "independent redistricting board" when a powerful-enough politician decided he didn't like not having total control over the process?
No. of Recommendations: 14
The whole gerrymandering quagmire is the result of the most corrupt SCOTUS in our history. Shadow docket rulings without any explanation, overturning past standards on a whim, allowing clearly unconstitutional behavior to stay in place until they issue a ruling in a year or two, a lack of ethical standards, issuing contradictory rulings, and magical logic.
One example of magical logic; if you say you are gerrymandering based on race, it’s bad. But if you do the exact same gerrymandering based on “legislative reasons”, it’s A-OK.
Apparently, the SCOTUS justices who claim to be textualists, are confused by the words our Founding Fathers used when they named one of the legislative bodies the “House of Representatives.”
Gerrymandering is anything but representative.
Couple this with the fact that today’s Republicans know they are unable to win on policy, so they cheat by gerrymandering. Who knew extending tax cuts for billionaires (yes, they were set to expire) but not extending healthcare subsidies for working class Americans would be so unpopular?
Today’s SCOTUS is a cancer that is slowly killing our democratic republic.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Non-partisan boards is a chimera.
This is how the Michigan board is staffed, (from the net sifter)
Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) has 13 members—four Republicans, four Democrats, and five Independents—who draw state legislative and congressional maps, including members like Erin Wagner (R), Marcus Muldoon (R), Elane Andrade (D), Donna Callaghan (D), and Independents like Janice Vallette, Rebecca Szetela, and Anthony Eid, with Ed Woods III serving as Executive Director, tasked with creating fair districts outside of direct political control.
Current Commissioners (Partial List as of early 2024/late 2023):
Republicans: Erin Wagner, Marcus Muldoon, Cynthia Orton, Ronda Lange.
Democrats: Elane Andrade, Donna Callaghan, Juanita Curry, Brittni Kellom.
Independents: Janice Vallette, Rebecca Szetela, Steven Terry Lett, Anthony Eid.
Executive Director: Edward Woods, III.
How They're Chosen:
Created by a 2018 ballot initiative (Proposal 1), the commission is made of citizens chosen randomly from applicants, not elected officials or political insiders.
There are strict eligibility rules to ensure independence, preventing candidates, party officials, lobbyists, or state employees from serving
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The Michigan House currently has 58 GOP and 52 Dem members. The Michigan Senate has 19 Dem and 18 GOP members. Gov, AG and SecState are all Dems.
For comparison, the Michgian House in 2016 had 63 GOP members and only 47 Dems. The state Senate had 27 GOP and 12 Dem members.
The independent commission in Michigan seems to have created a map that more accurately reflects the purple nature of the state.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
Alpha Wolf,
Since you are criticizing "our" Supreme Court (not yours, you're not American, right?), I have to ask you to specify if you have ever read a single Supreme Court opinion, or the underlying lower court opinions, that you are now criticizing?
If not, you're just spreading ignorant leftist and very ill informed propaganda.
The Supreme Court is final arbiter in "our" system. Right or wrong.
By attacking the legitimacy of the Supreme Court--especially based on zero informed opinion on your part--you attack the Rule of Law.
Shame on you, especially when you're not even an American.
No. of Recommendations: 2
What recourse does the electorate have should the "independent" boards act in a manner contrary to the public interest?
Re the Michigan board: the electorate has the authority to sue. There were several suits, and several iterations of the map, before we got to the map used now.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
Steve,
Thank you for that informative response about Michigan's independent redistricting commission.
So, my attitude is, if it is working for the citizens of Michigan, and it is constitutional under the U.S. and Michigan constitutions to have such a commission--
I am completely fine with it.
Because, ultimately, if it starts not working for some reason, the citizens of Michigan ultimately have recourse through their elected representatives, who can change or abolish the commission.
As your detailed notes point out, the Commission is "outside of direct political control."
So, they're not truly independent, just "outside of direct political control."
They remain subject to the will of the Michigan elected representatives and ultimately to the will of the people of Michigan, which is exactly as it should be.
No. of Recommendations: 0
OK Steve thank you for the additional info about Michigan's board.
So the citizenry has additionaly, indirect control over the commission by having the ability to sue for redress.
My basic point is, in a democratic representative government, there is really no such thing as a truly "independent" non-elected commission, and it would be a mistake to actually even want a commission that is totally unanswerable to the state's elected representatives, or to the public.
No. of Recommendations: 1
So, my attitude is, if it is working for the citizens of Michigan, and it is constitutional under the U.S. and Michigan constitutions to have such a commission--The Michigan Constitution was revised, by the vote of We The People, to establish the commission. That is why the old GOP controlled legislature could not get rid of it, tho they tried. from the net sifter:
Yes, Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) is fully authorized by the Michigan State Constitution, established through the voter-approved 2018 ballot initiative (Proposal 18-2), which amended Article IV, Section 6 to give the commission exclusive power to draw legislative and congressional maps, taking that power from the legislature. This constitutional amendment created a new, independent process for redistricting, ensuring citizens have the authority over drawing district boundaries for state legislature and U.S. Congress.
Key Points:
Constitutional Authority: The commission's power comes directly from the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2018.
Voter-Approved: Michigan voters passed Proposal 18-2, also known as "Voters Not Politicians," to implement this change.
Exclusive Power: The MICRC holds the sole authority to create and adopt district maps for the Michigan Senate, House, and U.S. Congress.
Purpose: The goal is to create a fairer, less partisan process for drawing electoral maps, removing the power from partisan legislatorsWriting the provision into the state Constitution is the only way to prevent the legislature ignoring or corrupting it.
For years, Michigan had an "emergency manager" law, authorizing the Gov to appoint a bureaucrat, unaccountable to We The People, to usurp the powers of elected officials, and take control of a city or school district. We The People voted to repeal this authoritarian law. So, the legislature simply passed another emergency manager law, to restore the authority to the Gov that We The People clearly stated we did not want.
November 2012
Michigan Proposal 1: Voters reject measure, repeal controversial emergency manager law
With 93 percent of precincts reporting as of 5:46 a.m., Proposal 1 had 2,182,504 "no" votes and 1,983,228 "yes" votes. The 52-48 percent margin compelled the Associated Press and other news organization to declare the measure dead.https://www.mlive.com/politics/2012/11/election_re...And the legislature overrode the will of We The People, with a new law, and rigged it so We The People could not interfere again. from the net sifter:
In late 2012, after voters rejected Michigan's prior Emergency Manager Law (Public Act 4), the legislature quickly passed a new version, Public Act 436, designed to be "referendum proof" and provide local governments more options (like mediation or bankruptcy) while still allowing the governor to appoint an EM with broad authority to override local charters and contracts to fix financial crises, sparking controversy over local control vs. state intervention.
Background & Context
Previous Law (PA 4): A 2011 law gave governors sweeping powers to appoint emergency managers (EMs) to take over struggling cities and schools, leading to significant backlash, notes Michigan Public.
Voter Rejection: In November 2012, voters repealed PA 4 through a referendum, seen as a rejection of state overreach, says ACLU of Michigan.
The New Law (PA 436 of 2012)
Legislative Response: The Republican-controlled legislature passed a new law (PA 436) just weeks later, signed by Governor Rick Snyder in December 2012, reports The New York Times and CBS Detroit.
Key Changes: The new law offered communities choices when facing a financial emergency: an EM, mediation, bankruptcy, or a reform plan.
Continued Power: It retained the controversial power for an EM to override local charters, ordinances, and union contracts, ensuring significant control, notes Mackinac Center and CBS Detroit
Impact & Controversy
Referendum-Proof: The law was designed to be "referendum proof," meaning citizens couldn't easily vote it down again, says ACLU of Michigan.
Racial Disparities: The law was later challenged as discriminatory, as it was disproportionately applied to majority-Black cities and school districts, leading to the poisoned water crisis in Flint, Center for Constitutional Rights notesSteve
No. of Recommendations: 6
The measure became "Proposal 2" on the 2018 ballot, and was approved by a vote of 61% of We The People. The old GOP majority in Lansing immediately went into a lame duck session to try to invalidate the clear choice of We The People, and enact laws to prevent We The People from ever changing the state Constitution again.
Utah voters passed a ballot initiative to have districts drawn by a non-partisan board. The Utah legislature, controlled by Republicans, has been fighting it. First they just made a rule to invalidate the election results. Then a Utah judge told the no, the couldn't do that. Now they are trying again. They pushed back all the filing dates for 2026, but only for 2026, in order to have more time to try to invalidate the ballot initiative. I think they are hoping the Utah State Supreme Court will side with them. It's Utah, so they might be right, but I cannot see how they should be able to invalidate the ballot measure that was passed by a majority of Utah voters.
MADDENING!
