Thread

1. goatlover · 1790365865 · focus · HN ↗

   Why do the courts even entertain this administration's requests when Trump has made it clear he wants to unconstitutionally take some form of control over state elections because he doesn't want Democrats to retake control of Congress?

   The only conclusion seems to be that conservative majorities on SCOTUS and the Eighth Circuit want this to happen as part of their unitary executive theory.

   An even more cynical conclusion is that they want the next two elections to be tampered with in favor of the Republican Party, so they remainin in control of the Federal government.

   1. tasty_freeze · 1790366303 · focus · HN ↗

      The Supreme Court ruled that it is 100% constitutional for states to disenfranchise voters based on party affiliation. I am not constitutional expert so I'll take them at their word that this is indeed the case.

      So you'd expect that there would be a bipartisan movement to fix this by making a constitutional amendment to establish it as a right. We're a democracy after all. Despite the cries that "both sides do it" one side would fight tooth and nail to block any such effort, and I'm disappointed that the other side has given up and isn't willing to fight tooth and nail to promote the issue.

      Yes, it is a tricky issue to make rules that guarantee fairness in elections and there are people who spend their lives figuring out ways to undermine democracy. But certainly we can put in some legal boundaries that make things limit the worse abuses.

      1. anigbrowl · 1790367237 · focus · HN ↗

         No it didn't. Is this some interpretation of yours based on a decision about gerrymandering maybe? I suggest you try again without treating your inferences as shared facts.

         1. SpicyLemonZest · 1790368314 · focus · HN ↗

            The opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;supreme.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;federal&#x2F;us&#x2F;588&#x2F;18-422&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;supreme.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;federal&#x2F;us&#x2F;588&#x2F;18-422&#x2F;) is pretty clear. The North Carolina and Maryland redistricting committees both sought to override the will of the voters. They had specific, explicit goals for precisely how many Democrats and how many Republicans should be elected in their state, and they knew the voters would not vote in accordance with those goals, so they redrew the maps in a successful attempt to ensure the partisan balance they desired. To me that&#x27;s a clear example of disenfranchisement.

            The Supreme Court didn&#x27;t quite rule that this was constitutional, I suppose, only that no court is allowed to consider the question.

            1. anigbrowl · 1790378407 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.