A three-judge panel heard arguments Friday as part of a lawsuit.
The panel was divided about whether the 2011 redistricting plan directly caused former Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett to lose his seat and whether the map should be changed.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Monday, July 17, 2017
Judges criticize Maryland's congressional redistricting map
A three-judge panel heard arguments Friday as part of a lawsuit.
The panel was divided about whether the 2011 redistricting plan directly caused former Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett to lose his seat and whether the map should be changed.
More
Maryland Democrats are corrupt? Who would have thought?
ReplyDeleteOf course they did what do you expect from democrats! None will be prosecuted or charged either. Its ok to break the law if your a liberal democrat
ReplyDeleteDidn't a former governor already admit to gerrymandering the districts?
ReplyDeleteJust get busy and fix it without all of the hoopla.
Hey Joe, Gerrymandering is a direct result of false attempts to provide minority inclusion in representation. Take a look at the redistricting in Salisbury to the five district plan. Specifically districts 1 and 2 (See link below). Two things in particular dictated those districts: 1) minority presence and 2) existing representatives in office. Notice the non-existence of natural or logical boundaries. These boundaries were specifically drawn based on census ethnicity information. What is really bothersome is when you consider that that Salisbury could have the easiest election districts ever given the quadrants that Route 13 and Route 50 create - NE, SE, NW, NE. Boom, there are your election districts and ironically they would be rather unique in their demographic compositions.
ReplyDeleteNow I wouldn't consider Salisbury's election districts to be a case of extreme gerrymandering, but it definitely and factually includes such. Salisbury's goal was to "properly" representation to minorities without displacing an existing elected official. In fact, the election districts that this redistricting replaced was far more guilty of gerrymandering to provide a "minority district."
So we see how the minority population defined Salisbury's gerrymandering, but how has that minority population benefited from having their "voices heard" in local government? What has our Council and Mayor done for districts 1 and 2? What has April Jackson (dist 1) and Muir Boda (dist 2) done for the people who put them in office? What City funded projects have been approved for districts 1 and 2? Hard to find some isn't it? That's because they aren't lobbying for their constituents, they are the mayor's puppets and help funnel as much funds as possible into a small corner of district 4 (Jim Ireton's district) called "Downtown Salisbury." We might as well not even have a City Council.
Let's look at crime now... Where is the vast majority of violent crime occurring? You guessed, districts 1 and 2! See where I'm, going with this? Governments on all scales aren't worried about you and me, or even the minorities. They are worrying about self preservation and special interests. They justify gerrymandering by saying it gives minorities a voice, but they don't listen to that voice. What is sad is that the minorities fall for their shallow games every time when in fact they are simply putting themselves into a deeper hole every time they fall for it. Things like gerrymandering don't help them - it never designed to do such. It was designed for the government to be controlled by a few. It suppresses minorities under the guise of helping them.
http://www.wicomicocounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/2985
Joe....please post a photo/diagram of the current district so people can see how crazy it is already.
ReplyDeleteBreaking news...maryland Democrats are criminals...not new information.
ReplyDelete