Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; …
If I’m interpreting this correctly, representatives are proportioned among states based on population. But there is no provision specifying that within a state the election must be based on electoral districts.
There doesn’t seem to be any constitutional requirements for electoral districts. It’s regulated by a law but not constitution, which should make it easier to modify.
They’re saying the constitution explicitly delegates this power to the states, meaning in order to enact something in this area nationally, it would require a constitutional amendment
It’s regulated per state. What Texas is doing, while highly unethical and, frankly, fraudulent, is entirely legal and up to the Texas state legislature to decide. Only the federal government may supersede it and only with a change to the constitution which prescribes this power to the states. So, for the Texas legislature, yes it’s easier to modify the law. To change it without them, it is absolutely not easier.
No it wasn’t. Gerrymandering that demonstrably targeted racial or other protected demographics or otherwise broke the voting rights act was illegal. But gerrymandering as a concept has never been illegal in the US. State and federal courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled several times that there is no constitutional law against it, nor a mechanism to objectively identify it, nor a means to remedy it. If it violates those other laws in the process, it gets rejected and kicked back to be fixed. But if not, there is nothing illegal about it under current law, despite it being blatant vote manipulation. What SCOTUS has rolled back is certain oversight for the voters right act and have given legislatures the out to claim that blatant racial disenfranchisement is political, not racial.
Edit: There might be individual state laws or constitutions making gerrymandering illegal or otherwise removing the districting power from the legislature. I’m not aware of any, specifically, but I wouldn’t be shocked if there were. I’m only speaking on a federal level.
Article 1 of the US constitution lays out how the Congress is structured and what powers it should have. It can be changed by passing constitutional amendments, but the bar for passing those is so high that it’s not realistic to think the current US Congress could or would change it for the better right now, for a whole bunch of reasons that are pretty evident.
Article one is where the founders put the design of the structure of the government, including the bullshit used to put their thumb in the scale of democracy, along with how they’re elected, what powers they (should) have and the limits of it (when they choose to enforce it).
It would be a full rewrite of the first article of the constitution, so it’s not really on the table.
So I went and looked it up
If I’m interpreting this correctly, representatives are proportioned among states based on population. But there is no provision specifying that within a state the election must be based on electoral districts.
And according to Wikipedia
There doesn’t seem to be any constitutional requirements for electoral districts. It’s regulated by a law but not constitution, which should make it easier to modify.
They’re saying the constitution explicitly delegates this power to the states, meaning in order to enact something in this area nationally, it would require a constitutional amendment
It’s regulated per state. What Texas is doing, while highly unethical and, frankly, fraudulent, is entirely legal and up to the Texas state legislature to decide. Only the federal government may supersede it and only with a change to the constitution which prescribes this power to the states. So, for the Texas legislature, yes it’s easier to modify the law. To change it without them, it is absolutely not easier.
Well, kinda- gerrymandering itself was illegal until the current Supreme Court (well, the GOP part) decided to gut election laws for Trump
No it wasn’t. Gerrymandering that demonstrably targeted racial or other protected demographics or otherwise broke the voting rights act was illegal. But gerrymandering as a concept has never been illegal in the US. State and federal courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled several times that there is no constitutional law against it, nor a mechanism to objectively identify it, nor a means to remedy it. If it violates those other laws in the process, it gets rejected and kicked back to be fixed. But if not, there is nothing illegal about it under current law, despite it being blatant vote manipulation. What SCOTUS has rolled back is certain oversight for the voters right act and have given legislatures the out to claim that blatant racial disenfranchisement is political, not racial.
Edit: There might be individual state laws or constitutions making gerrymandering illegal or otherwise removing the districting power from the legislature. I’m not aware of any, specifically, but I wouldn’t be shocked if there were. I’m only speaking on a federal level.
It wouldn’t mean much as long as the senate still exists.
never heard that
please explain
Article 1 of the US constitution lays out how the Congress is structured and what powers it should have. It can be changed by passing constitutional amendments, but the bar for passing those is so high that it’s not realistic to think the current US Congress could or would change it for the better right now, for a whole bunch of reasons that are pretty evident.
Article one is where the founders put the design of the structure of the government, including the bullshit used to put their thumb in the scale of democracy, along with how they’re elected, what powers they (should) have and the limits of it (when they choose to enforce it).
Thats what amendments are for.