All pain, whose gain? The surprising implications of a new legal theory for redistricting
(cross-posted with my new Substack) Lots of pixels have been spilled on a legal theory once considered fringe, the Independent State Legislatu...
Senate: 48 Dem | 52 Rep (range: 47-52)
Control: R+2.9% from toss-up
Generic polling: Tie 0.0%
Control: Tie 0.0%
Harris: 265 EV (239-292, R+0.3% from toss-up)
Moneyball states: President NV PA NC
Click any tracker for analytics and data
I’ll appear in the 11 o’clock hour to talk about yesterday’s North Carolina partisan gerrymandering decision. I’ll be on with Don Lemon. He’ll also have the Reverend William Barber of the Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina. Tune in!
For those of you who missed it, here’s the video.
Looks like we have a circuit split:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pennsylvania-keeps-congressional-map
“The task of prescribing election regulations was given, in the first instance, to political actors who make decisions for political reasons,” Circuit Court Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in the majority opinion in the case delivered by a court that was split 2-1. “Plaintiffs ignore this reality.”
This argument just terrifies me; it seems to be explicitly endorsing “one person, one vote, one time.”
I think this quote only attacks article one arguments. This blog has speculated that J. Kennedy is thinking about the incorporated First Amendment.