@VelvetDuchess It's State-level, not Federal, but you're right that it should be outlawed, nonetheless.
@VelvetDuchess @danieldeaseweitzelwalker Thank you, very interesting read. Also, I am SICK of Republicans. Like, physically sick when reading their names, seeing their faces.
@lovesdaryl @danieldeaseweitzelwalker I knew DeSantis would win when Charlie Crist showed up.
@VelvetDuchess @lovesdaryl Each state has to have laws against gerrymandering. The manipulation of district within a given state is by definition a state issue, as you can't gerrymander across state lines. If you could, that would be Federal jurisdiction. It's why the pot shops in Cali just laughed at the drug feds - they didn't sell pot across state lines and it's legal to sell it in Cali, and is therefore not a crime and not actionable. They shut them down - they pop up again, legally.
@danieldeaseweitzelwalker @VelvetDuchess But DeSantis' mind blowing absolute GALL to gerrymander away a whole majority Black, majority Dem DISTRICT and add the parts to majority white, Republican leaning districts and then claim that wasn't a partisan move! I am so sick of their bs, and they keep getting away with it.
@lovesdaryl @danieldeaseweitzelwalker There we’re House races that went well
@VelvetDuchess @danieldeaseweitzelwalker Wow, 25, so great to have young people at the table! 👌 They have by far the most to lose.
@lovesdaryl @VelvetDuchess Definitely. The people decide, but when they vote Republicans in, even if you're Blue and you complain to your Republican Senator, they're just going to ignore you. It's a cycle Republicans use over and over once the get into power. Lie, cheat, win the election; Ignore, control, use their position to change laws in their favor, and win again. It's disgusting, frankly.
@lovesdaryl @VelvetDuchess I should be clear: Gerrymandering is just another way to cheat their way to keeping themselves in, naturally.
@lovesdaryl @danieldeaseweitzelwalker SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act.
@VelvetDuchess SCOTUS urgently needs to be expanded. If I understand the matter correctly, 13 (corresponding to the number of appellate courts) would be the minimum number that would be acceptable - or any multiple of that, for randomizing judges to cases brought to the court.
@VelvetDuchess @lovesdaryl No argument here. ;)
@danieldeaseweitzelwalker @VelvetDuchess Am I misremembering this or wasn't there even a COURT that allowed it? 🤬