On December 22, the Michigan League of Women Voters, and some voters who prefer to vote for Democrats, filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan’s U.S. House and legislative district boundaries. League of Women Voters of Michigan v Johnson, e.d., 2:2017cv-14148. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/22/lawsuit-gerrymandering-michigan/108856648/
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/12/22/redistricting-gerrymandering-league-women-voters-lawsuit/972341001/
website
https://www.lwvmi.org/
—
Press release
http://www.lwvmi.org/documents/PrRelRedist12-22-17.pdf
—
Complaint
http://www.lwvmi.org/documents/RedistComplaint12-17.pdf
see 1812 vs 2012 cartoon
—–
Mich is one of the few somewhat even Donkey/Elephant Statewide regimes — see 2016 Prez math.
*******
ALL AREA-based gerrymanders since 1776 —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander areas
= 1/4 or less CONTROL =
OLIGARCHY — inherited from Brit House of Commons gerrymanders in 1200s
— mere 700 plus years of oligarchs making laws.
Save Democracy —
PR legislative and Nonpartisan AppV Exec/Judic
They are probably hoping for a favorable SCOTUS ruling in ‘Gill v Whitford’, which could then expedite their case. It might not go to trial before the SCOTUS decision, so they will no how to coach their witnesses.
They have added a few plaintiffs who complain about their particular districts. One issue in the Wisconsin case was whether the plaintiffs had standing. In a racial gerrymandering or malapportionment case, plaintiffs have to reside in racially cracked/packed districts or overpopulated districts. In the Wisconsin case, Whitford lives in Milwaukee and was able to vote for Democratic legislators. The Maryland case is based on a single district being gerrymandering.
In the Alabama racial gerrymandering case, the justices were debating during oral argument whether the complaint had specified individual districts. Some justices argued whether they should be rewriting the briefs for the plaintiffs. The majority opinion included a concordance to show that there had been mention of individual districts.
On remand, the district court permitted the plaintiffs to refile based on each individual district. The district court then went through each challenged district in a massive 1000-page decision. Rejecting some districts, accepting others. Meanwhile the SCOTUS decision in the Virginia legislative case (Bethune-Hill) changed the criteria for evaluating racial predominance, and the Alabama legislature agreed to redraw the entire map.
The plaintiffs agreed that the new map had corrected the original map, but attempted to add new claims, which the court has rejected. It is unlikely that the new map will change one seat in the legislature.
The Michigan filing should be rejected for failing to use a map projection for their example maps, and their “fair” congressional map is horrible.
The Mich Donkeys merely want to be the 25 percent controlling oligarchs —
switch oligarch gangsters.
Like switching control from nazis to commies in 1945.
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_8721-265785–,00.html
LINKS TO THE GERRYMANDER MAPS.
EXACT PR — Each legislator has a Voting Power equal to the direct and indirect votes that he/she gets.
NO census, no fractions stuff.
V = Votes
M = Members
Sample
M1 — VVVVV
M2 — VVVVVVV
M3 — VVV
Etc.
Spreadsheet child’s play.
@DR,
What is an indirect vote?
Indirect vote = vote for a loser that is moved to a winner via a pre-election public loser rank order list of all other candidates.
—
PR and AppV
small d *democratic* corporations = 1 share = 1 vote
esp in choosing corp board of directors.
@DR,
Is weighted voting constitutional for the US House of Representatives?
Also see results for Colorado in 1892 and 1894.
In the 2016 election. Trump received 50.1% of the Trump-Clinton vote in Michigan. This is the mean voter.
But a majority of voters resided in precincts that were 55.4% or more for Trump. That is the median voter.
And 62.2% of voters voted in a precinct carried by Trump. That is, if each precinct elected a legislator, and they had a weight equal to the number of popular votes cast in their precinct, the Trumpeters would have 62.2% of the seats, and the Clintonistas 37.8%.
Trump had 90.1% of the vote in a single precinct of any size (he won a small precinct on a 3:0 vote). Clinton had 90%+ of the vote in 780 precincts, representing 7.6% of the population. A voter would be 277 times more likely to vote in an extreme Clinton precinct compared to an an extreme Trump precinct.
Given this skew in the distribution of voters, one wonders about those pushing the idea of partisan symmetry. Are they naive, stupid, or dishonest?
RE JR —
Given this skew in the distribution of voters, one wonders about those pushing the idea of partisan symmetry. Are they naive, stupid, or dishonest?
—-
Total dishonest = total corrupt.
IE – want to rig the districts to be the 25 percent CONTROL faction —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less control.
—
PR and AppV — via Const Amdt
Gee — how many USA Const Amdts involving election stuff after Amdts 1-11 ???
Answer – 12, 14-2, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26 —
a mere 10 of 16.
The CRISIS is N-O-W — due to the wannabee TYRANT Trump.