Judge's ruling upends Florida's political landscape

AP via Yahoo ^ | October 10, 2015 | Gary Fineout

[jpsb]

I don’t know I just googled for images. All the images looked the same so I would guess they are the current lines.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Better yet, a computer program that can create the most compact districts that contain the same number of people. This computer programmer solved gerrymandering in his spare time

Mathematics is not partisan. Neither party should be able to draw districts that give them an advantage.

[jospehm20]

So leadership holds a gun to his head and causes him to vote Rat over 1/3 of the time? And yet, somehow Reps like Gohmert manage to maintain a 96% record. The truth is that Webster often does not vote conservative. He is better than McCarthy and marginally than Ryan. I think he is a better choice than either of them but there are many reps who manage to maintain a more conservative record than Webster does.

[Lazamataz]

Florida Circuit Judge Terry Lewis on Friday recommended new boundaries for the state's 27 congressional districts,

Thank you for your recommendation. Now sit the **** down and shut the **** up, you liberal hack.

[SharpRightTurn]

“U.S. Rep. Dan Webster — one of the hard-line conservatives”

“hard-line”. Webster has a 74% conservative rating by Heritage Action, so that makes him a “hard-line conservative”? But I guess if you’re a hard leftist Associated Propaganda writer like Gary Fineout everyone more conservative than Adam Kinzinger is “hard-line.”

[COBOL2Java]

So leadership holds a gun to his head and causes him to vote Rat over 1/3 of the time?

Never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Impy]

Allegedly, Pelosi would probably sue and win.

Silly idea (non-member Speaker), ain’t gonna happen anyway.

[Impy]

This is THE DEMOCRATS and it has been going on for MONTHS. Long before Webster announced for Speaker. Contrary to what paranoid things you may think, Republicans don’t conspire to draw pro-democrat House seats.

The Florida voters passed some lame-ass “fair redistricting” amendment in 2010. This prevented the FL Legislature (R) from drawing seats the best way they could and cost us Allen West (imbeciles who had no idea what they were talking about accused the legislature of doing it on purpose).

Earlier this year after some faggots sued, the FL Supreme Court (D) declared that the map in effect for the last 2 elections violates the queerbo fairness amendment cause too many scum-sucking cities are divided. It’s been in limbo ever since as the Leg failed to pass a new map.

2 democrats looking to gain seats from this are Charlie Crist (who appointed several Supreme Court Justices) and his running mate from the last Gov election. Sounds “fair” to me, not.

[HarleyLady27]

WOW.. that isn’t the way the piece was meant to let us know what was happening, sounded like the republicans wanted this and to take the blame for it...

Does share a different light on the subject matter now...

[Ray76]

“Today, I filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking relief against the continued use of any congressional redistricting plan that dilutes the voting strength of African-Americans,” Brown said.

“District 5 in Florida and minority access districts across the nation cannot, and will not be eliminated, particularly after the hard-fought civil rights gains we have made during the last 50 years. As a people, African-Americans have fought too hard to get to where we are now, and we certainly are not taking any steps backwards,” Brown said.

Brown’s current district, referred to in the filing as a “minority access district,” was intended to enfranchise African-Americans along the St. Johns River; its “contours trace the historic settlement” of African-Americans along the waterway. Its “distinct population with a shared history” settled where they did, the filing continues, because of red-lining and restrictive covenants that restricted their settlement elsewhere.

The Jacksonville-to-Orlando configuration, which the Florida Supreme Court directly objects to, was almost unanimously agreed to by the executive and legislative branches of Florida’s government in 1996, and, Brown contends, “has received bipartisan support ever since.”

The filing contends that the east-west configuration dilutes the minority vote, and contravenes the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by denying/abridging African-American suffrage in what is called “intentional discrimination.”

Source: http://floridapolitics.com/archives/188172-corrine-delivers-a-federal-lawsuit

Brown's lawsuit: http://floridapolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/complaint1.pdf

All so that a "black" may preside over a "minority access district". This is a demeaning racist requirement.

The Florida League of Women Voters, Common Cause Florida, and National Council of La Raza have also objected to every proposed redistricting.

Here is an analysis of the political implications: http://floridapolitics.com/archives/186391-in-wake-of-historic-redistricting-decision-here-are-maps-maps-maps-detailing-the-possible-changes

The case also il­lus­trates the ten­sion between Vot­ing Rights Act re­quire­ments meant to pro­tect minor­it­ies’ elect­or­al in­flu­ence and ger­ry­man­der­ing laws that pre­vent minor­it­ies from be­ing packed in­to a single dis­trict. In Brown’s dis­trict, which snakes from Jack­son­ville to Gaines­ville to Or­lando, state law­makers told they court they thought they needed to main­tain at least a 50 per­cent ma­jor­ity of Afric­an Amer­ic­an voters to com­ply with a Vot­ing Rights Act re­quire­ment that cer­tain dis­tricts have enough minor­it­ies for them to elect the can­did­ate of their choice.

Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/2015/07/09/Florida-Supreme-Court-Throws-Out-Congressional-Map-Orders-Battleground-Districts-Redrawn

Brown's 5th District - 2012-2014

Brown's 5th District - after 2014 court ruling

Brown's 5th District - Proposed

[jospehm20]

Sorry. Webster is the best name put forward so far but I wish he had a more conservative voting record. He is not part of the current “leadership” team which is a plus.

[bestintxas]

Boy, you give up real quickly.

Why do you think that is likely?

[Impy]

I’m not “giving up”, I think it’s a constitutionally questionable idea that’s stupid anyway and just an excuse to float fantasy Speaker candidates rather than deal with reality. I think it’s implicit that the Speaker needs to be a member. I’m textualist but this interpretation that he/she doesn’t need to be a member is overly literal if you ask me.

As Matthew J. Franck writes: “The point is that parlor-trick textualism is not the most sensible way to interpret the Constitution. Text must be placed in context, and context must be situated in history, and the historic purposes of the Constitution’s makers must be what we seek to understand.”

I think Pelsoi would sue because victory would embarrass the Republicans and force them to choose a new Speaker. And I think the courts would rule in her favor because the courts blow (but I’d be forced to agree with such a ruling).

This is all moot anyway because the House is extremely unlikely to ever elect a non-member Speaker because believe it or not they don’t take their cues from the Internet.

[Joe Brower]

Florida Freeper

[AuH2ORepublican]

When the Framers wrote Article I, they adopted a Speaker—based on the Speaker of the British House of Commons—to preside over the House of Representatives. The British Speakership had been limited to Members of Parliament for centuries, so it was understood that the Speaker of the House of the U.S. of Representatives had to be a Member of the House, and there was no need thus to specify. The important thing that had to be set forth in Article I is who would name the Speaker, given that a few centuries before the British Speaker had been selected by the King from among Members of the House of Commons; to avoid presidential entanglements, Article I, section 2 declares that the “House shall choose their Speaker.” The Speaker is the only House officer specifically named in the Constitution, and had the Framers wished to divert from the British definition of the word to allow a non-member Speaker they would have said it. And, of course, no House member cast even a protest vote for a non-member of the House for the first two centuries of its history—not even when the House was split three ways in 1855-56 and it took over 100 votes to elect a Speaker—which is a pretty good indication of what they thought were the qualifications for Speaker. Arguing in favor of a non-member as Speaker is a waste of time.

There’s like 246 Republicans in the House. They should pick one of them and that’s that.

[bestintxas]

I suggest a case that the ONLY agreeable candidate is someone outside the house GOP. Think Gerald Ford type. If a man not elected as President or as VP can become President, I think it certainly viable a Speaker can be elected who is not a sitting member.