Ohio Loses Lawsuit Against Census Bureau Over Timing of Population Data

On March 24, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas M. Rose issued a ruling in State of Ohio v Raimondo, s.d., 3:21cv-64. He denied the state’s request to force the Census Bureau to speed up the population data, so that the state can begin redistricting. Here is the decision. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news. The state has appealed.


Comments

Ohio Loses Lawsuit Against Census Bureau Over Timing of Population Data — 8 Comments

  1. With New Age gerrymander computer apps —

    INSTANT new rigged packed/cracked gerrymander districts

    1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 or less CONTROL.

    — with uch much much worse primary math

    >>> super-extremist hack monarchs/oligarchs control most law making in the USA —

    to econ benefit their gangs — FIRST to get all govt LOOT —

    It Shows — NON-stop chaos events.

    Pending TOTAL bankruptcy of most govts / biz / persons

    >>> lurking max hyper-inflation.

    Savers/investors to be destroyed by commie/fascist STATISTS.
    ——–
    PR and APPV
    TOTSOP

  2. Some states may be compelled to elect all or some of their Reps at large, as in 1932, if they are not able to complete redistricting in time.

    Ranked choice, approval, or cumulative voting may help make any at large elections more competitive and diverse.

  3. WZ – esp in early primary States.

    NOT sure of any date changes since 2018 primaries.

    The chaos gets worse and worse.

  4. @WZ,

    There was no federal statute in effect in 1932. Previously, the rules were specifically applied to each individual apportionment.

    In 1941, Congress passed 2 USC 2a(c) which uses the words “any apportionment” replacing the previously used “this apportionment”.

    In 1967, Congress passed 2 USC 2c which is contradictory. But 2 USC 2a(c) would come into effect only if the legislature, the state courts, and federal courts failed to redistrict.

    In 1932, Minnesota elected a 3rd Party candidate in a plurality election for 9 representatives.

  5. The key holding in Wesberry v Sanders is

    “We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, ยง 2 that Representatives be chosen “by the People of the several States” means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s”

    Ohio should draw its congressional districts on the basis of equal numbers of voters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.