On August 10, U.S. District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik, a Clinton appointee, determined that part of the Washington state redistricting plan passed in 2022 violates the federal Voting Rights Act. He found that the 1th district, centered in Yakima, is unfair to Latino voters.
Washington state legislative districts are not drawn by the legislature. Instead they are drawn by a bipartisan redistricting commission, consisting of two Democratic appointees and two Republican appointees. There is also a fifth member who does not vote. It is unusual for any court to strike down a redistricting plan that was prepared by a redistricting commission.
Here is the decision in Soto Palmer v Hobbs, 3:22cv-5035, western district.
Blondes demand justice! We need voting districts that are fair to blondes!
1965 VRA —
NONSTOP PERVERSION OF 15-1 AMDT — ONLY ABOUT ELECTOR DEFINITION
N-O-T ANY WIN RESULTS FOR ANY FACTION.
—
P-A-T
End voter rustling by duopoly politicians. Abstract
It is possible to end gerrymandering by removing the power to draw district lines from government officials and giving this power to the voters themselves. In a self-districting system, as described herein, each voter chooses which constituency the voter wants to join for purposes of legislative representation. These constituencies can be geographically based as in traditional districting systems, but they also can be based on other attributes—whatever associational communities the voters themselves wish to form. If enough voters join a constituency to form more than one district based on the constitutional principle of equally populated districts, then this constituency can be subdivided into districts based on strict computer-implemented geographical criteria without any possibility for gerrymandering. This self-districting system not only complies with the U.S. Constitution; it is also consistent with the Act of Congress that requires single-member districts. Thus, there is no federal law obstacle to prevent states from adopting a self-districting system for both their congressional delegation and their own legislative chambers. In fact, self-districting is a way to avoid the problem of minority vote dilution, a task likely to become more difficulty given anticipated changes in the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the topic. Because of the increasingly pernicious nature of gerrymandered districts, which cause voters—and most especially minority voters—serious representational harms, the alternative of self-districting, where voters are empowered to make these representational decisions for themselves, deserves serious consideration.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4328642
Don’t forget about the little people.
@DFR,
The SCOTUS might decide that your plan is still tantamount to race sorting – that it is not truly self-districting by voters if the state sets up a system that encourages segregation of voters. There is also the problem of the equality fetish where voters are assigned to a district not of their choice.
A better choice is to let voters choose their own representative, with representatives exercising a weighted vote in proportion to the number of voters who voted for them. In effect, it is like a proxy system where each voter owns one share of the legislature.
In Washington, we could have a unicameral legislature of 198 members based on the cube root rule. We divide the state into 40 districts such that we would expect five members to be elected from each district.
Voters vote for their candidate of choice. The top 198 are elected. The candidates with fewer votes can tranfer their proxy to another candidate.
Based on 2020 election results, we would expect a typical representative to represent around 20,000 voters. If they had receive 21,382 votes they would have 21,382 votes in the legislature. Or we could normalize the voting weights so they total 198. So the legislator who received 21,382 votes might have a weighted vote of 1.036.
Alternatively, we could give 198 “winners” full voting rights – the right to speak, the right to introduce bills, and the right to serve on committees. They would be expected to travel to Olympia.
The “losers” would retain voting rights on legislative matters, but not procedural matters.
D. Frank Robinson, That is an interesting and attractive proposal that I had not heard of before. Thanks for describing it.
Jim Riley, Another interesting proposal. Thanks for describing it.
Jim Riley
https://ballot-access.org/2023/08/11/u-s-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-asks-miami-for-a-quick-response-in-racial-gerrymandering-case/#comment-1170026
@GW,
The proposal that DFR linked to is similar to the procedure used in New Zealand for Maori voters. The census records the race of persons.
The electoral rolls also record the race of voters. Voters may choose to be on the Maori or general roll. If 60% of Maori voters choose to be on the Maori roll, then 60% of the population in that small area will be considered to be the Maori population for that area.
Then two sets of districts are drawn totally covering the country.
Sounds way too complicated.unnecessary.
WEIGHTED EXACT VOTES IN SOME/MANY CORP STOCKHOLDER ELECTIONS– N SHARES = N VOTES
SCOTUS – POPULATION FIXATION [INSTANTLY OBSOLETE] SINCE 1964 GERRYMANDER CASES.
—-
P-A-T
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT
SURPLUS VOTES DOWN- REPEAT
LOWEST LOSER VOTES UP- REPEAT
HOW ABOUT ANNUAL ELECTIONS ??? — TO PUT REAL PRESSURE ON HACKS IN LEGIS BODIES ???
NOW- VOTERS IGNORED DAY AFTER ELECTION DAYS – LOOT TREASURY GANGS [AKA SPECIAL INTEREST GANGS] TAKE OVER.
LONGER TERM – VOTERS COULD CHANGE VOTES DURING TERMS >>> TOTAL NONSTOP PRESSURE ON HACKS.
WOULD REQUIRE 100 PCT SECURITY.
I like the Max plan, which includes annual elections and 100% security.
@AZ,
Some jurisdictions use weighted voting – where the weighting is based on the population of the area represented.
Some states do not have annual meeting of the legislature, or a second special may be limited. So no real need for annual elections.
What is actually meant by “surplus” votes? Billy has too many votes so he has to give some to Susie, because it wouldn’t be fair to recognize that more voters wanted Billy? And how do we choose to give them to Susie? Well we look at the ballots cast for Billy and see that their second choice was Jane, but Jane had been eliminated (that sounds too draconian so perhaps she was just excluded). And we keep looking, and see that Susie was the 5th choice on the ballot. But these ballots were not really for Billy but he was the second choice of those who had voted for Dave but he had been eliminated.
Way too cockamamie complicated.
Jim Riley’s idea sound really stupid.
It just goes to show that so-called “independent commissions” are not necessarily better than the legislature at drawing up districts.
Multi-member districts allow voters to self-district with their own votes.
I agree with Phil. Max Plan is way better.
HOW MANY VOTERS UNDERSTAND ***WEIGHTED*** VOTES ???
HOW MANY SCOTUS HACKS — WHO BARELY UNDERSTAND 5 > 4 ???
It sounds like an open door to mass confusion and cheating.
HOW MANY FACTIONS NEEDED IN EACH LEGISLATIVE BODY ???
MORE / LESS GOVT CONTROL OF EVERYBODY / EVERYTHING IN A REGIME.
Zero factions would be ideal. Legislative bodies are only “necessary” because laws are way too complicated.
Far less government control would also be optimal. Government should only be concerned with protection of citizens against foreign and criminal attack. Everything else would be better handled in other ways.
HOW MANY LAYERS OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN RUSSIA ???
URBAN MORE / RURAL LESS ???
ANY OF THEM N-O-T CONTROLLED BY PUTIN SECRET POLICE KILLERS ???
AZ is lAZy as well as crAZy. Do your own research.
LOOKING AT ANY RUSSIAN WEBSITE = ADDED NAME ON PUTIN SECRET POLICE PURGE LIST — OR JUST HAVE PSP SOFTWARE INFECTION ON YOUR COMPUTER ???
Look on American websites then. Recent news about Wagner Group is not hard to find.
@WZ,
In the district the commission drew which was 50.5% HCVAP, the Republican candidate won with 70% of the vote. But the court discounted that result because it was a Hispanic Republican man who defeated an Anglo Democrat woman. Since he was not the candidate of choice of the plaintiffs.
It will be interesting what happens when the SCOTUS gets the case.
Barbie and Gimli make good points above.
@AZ,
27 times as many voters understand weighted voting as understand STV or Condorcet.
So like 2%?