Redistricting Move Warns House GOP

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...unds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House

A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Tuesday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the Census so high atop his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

More at link...
 
LOL. I love how they call one State's Congressional Delegate "A number of republicans", and then only name one person in the delegation that says anything at all about it...

:D
 
Dungheap said:
Why? What possible could be illegal about an executive branch agency reporting to the executive?
Click to expand...

after having read about it, finally, nothing. seems like there is enough safeguards that this shouldn't be an issue. After all, if a state has an issue with population count, it can always seek redress.
 
I actually posted the article to point out how they made one person into a "coalition". They make it seem like all the Rs are against the Census being done by the branch it is supposed to be done by...

Seriously, I find it hilarious.
 
Congressional district shouldn't be apportioned to the states. They should just be drawn federally without regard to state boundaries, just as long as the population is equal.
 
Damocles said:
I actually posted the article to point out how they made one person into a "coalition". They make it seem like all the Rs are against the Census being done by the branch it is supposed to be done by...

Seriously, I find it hilarious.
Click to expand...

well hell, if we can have an army of one, why not a coalition of one? just sayin
 
Watermark said:
Congressional district shouldn't be apportioned to the states. They should just be drawn federally without regard to state boundaries, just as long as the population is equal.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, thats what we need. some dumbass senator from massachussetts drawing texas representative lines. The sheer size of texas would throw him in to a catatonic state. not that his drinking doesn't anyway.
 
Watermark said:
Congressional district shouldn't be apportioned to the states. They should just be drawn federally without regard to state boundaries, just as long as the population is equal.
Click to expand...
There shouldn't be lines. There should just be random "groups" picked out of the ether just so long as the numbers were equal.

:D (one-upping... Let's see how far he'll go.)
 
what is the necessity of redistricting and so forth? and why would the federal government be more capable of redefining or defining a state's districts than the state who actually knows its own neighborhoods?
 
Yurt said:
what is the necessity of redistricting and so forth? and why would the federal government be more capable of redefining or defining a state's districts than the state who actually knows its own neighborhoods?
Click to expand...
The parties tend to use their knowledge to select areas that make up districts that are "sure things" for them and try to use that same power to reduce such districts for the other party while they are in power.

What Watermark is trying for is a system that has no "sure things" because the districts would be selected more randomly.
 
Well I honestly wouldn't care if it were apportioned to states or not as long as it was done by a nonpartisan commission, rather than the current situation where legislators draw their own perfectly gerrymandered district.

But if we could ignore state lines it would just be fairer. We could have districts with nearly equal populations everywhere, rather than the current situation where apportionment between states naturally over represents half and under represents the other half.
 
Watermark said:
Well I honestly wouldn't care if it were apportioned to states or not as long as it was done by a nonpartisan commission, rather than the current situation where legislators draw their own perfectly gerrymandered district.

But if we could ignore state lines it would just be fairer. We could have districts with nearly equal populations everywhere, rather than the current situation where apportionment between states naturally over represents half and under represents the other half.
Click to expand...

not a bad idea
 
Watermark said:
Well I honestly wouldn't care if it were apportioned to states or not as long as it was done by a nonpartisan commission, rather than the current situation where legislators draw their own perfectly gerrymandered district.

But if we could ignore state lines it would just be fairer. We could have districts with nearly equal populations everywhere, rather than the current situation where apportionment between states naturally over represents half and under represents the other half.
Click to expand...

I could go along with something like this as long as chicago, new york, and san francisco are split in to 4 separate sections.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i wouldn't think a move like that could even be legal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is. Why shouldn't the democrats gerrymander to their advantage? Isn't that what both parties do when they win elections? Isn't it what they have always done?

The democrats will gerrymander districts to their advantage and republicans will howl but and it was the other way around when Bush and Repubs were in charge.
 
Yurt said:
what is the necessity of redistricting and so forth? and why would the federal government be more capable of redefining or defining a state's districts than the state who actually knows its own neighborhoods?
Click to expand...

True and as Tip O'Neal said "All politics is local."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top