• worfosaurus@lemmy-api.ten4ward.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yup. They just kept submitting maps that were getting rejected for being unconstitutional and eventually the court just had to let it go because you can’t just not have an election and they couldn’t do anything else about it.

    We need to add some kind of recourse to the rules. Something like “if you can’t put together a constitutional map by the deadline, then the minority party gets to submit one for consideration instead”.

      • worfosaurus@lemmy-api.ten4ward.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d be down with that, FartsWithAnAccent! But the constitution would have to be updated with that clause. Right now, it just says that they have to do a thing without specifying what happens if they don’t do that thing

          • worfosaurus@lemmy-api.ten4ward.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately they were only ordered to draw a new map, which they did. So they did indeed “comply”. The court can’t tell them how to draw the map, only that it needs to be redrawn.

            It’s not a particularly smart system

    • Thormjolnir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like if you can’t make a constitutional map, or special election for either replacing you, (the elected officials) or a panel of people to make a map. But also I semi wonder if you could just have a computer do it. Just try to split up counties as close to 50/50

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed, but the goal shouldn’t be 50/50, but to properly represent the people. Each area is different, but generally speaking, urban areas should form a district with other urban areas, and rural areas should form a district with other rural areas.

        If the goal is to match the statewide partisan split, we should just move to proportional representation.

        • worfosaurus@lemmy-api.ten4ward.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, there are some legitimate reasons to not split everything by population or affiliation. This can end up destroying the voice that some isolated minority communities have.

          It’s a super hard problem to find the best solution, but also super obvious when people are proposing shitty solutions for obviously immoral reasons. It would be a decent first step if we could just get to where we don’t have an obviously shitty, and ultimately unconstitutional, map

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s certainly possible, but it’s probably better than the alternative.

            I’m in Utah, and we passed an initiative where an independent commission proposes maps for the state legislature, and the legislature ignored all of them and passed one where every district includes a part of SLC to fracture the liberal vote. So now all four representatives could live within a mile or so of each other.

            Yeah is something like 65/35 Rep/Dem, yet no district is feasible to win by a Democrat.

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Maybe, but Dayton and Cincinnati are kinda close. In my state (Utah), it would be like Cleveland and Cincinnati sharing a representative. All of our districts share a piece of the main urban center, to the point where all of our representatives could live within a mile or so of each other.

            Ohio’s maps don’t look obviously bad, but there are certainly some sus districts.