'Failure of the Attorney General to object...

...does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin enforcement of the changes.'

Just wanted to get that excerpt in print, so when Republicans come down from their oregano-joint high, they'll understand why they don't feel so good anymore:

RT @RepDavidRLewis: Ladies and Gentlemen, The US Dept of Justice has pre-cleared the fair and legal plans passed by the NCGA

I'm thinking about having David Lewis give the eulogy at my funeral: "He was a great man, and well-loved..." :)

Comments

Why did the Justice

Why did the Justice Department pre-clear these maps? I thought a Democratic Justice Department was supposed to be our one chance against stopping the Republican gerrymander. They just handed the state to the Republicans for at least the next ten years.

So, are NC liberals finally ready to dump Obama?

Anyone still apologizing for Obama and his administration should really get their head out of their ass.

Obama's mishandling of the economic crisis is the reason state-level Democrats lost the General Assembly in 2010, and Obama's sign-off of these ridiculous maps are the reason the GOP is going to keep it for the next decade.

Any real progressive or liberal in this state needs to withdraw from working with the DNC and begin to work against Obama immediately.

 

Those pitiful "accomplishment" links have been debunked

by folks in the policy realm since they were made, but now all you have to do is read the mainstream news to see how false these lists are.

Dodd-Frank? Really? Where is that in effect? It's not. And it's being watered down in the rulemaking process every week.

DADT was repealed DESPITE the Obama administration, not because of it. That action was pushed by protests and court cases and former US Rep. Patrick Murphy than by anything the White House did.

See my note about the Supreme Court scare-mongering in another comment.

And generally, quit being a patsy for folks who are moving this country to the right while claiming to be Democrats.

 

Thank you, pot. Kettle responds in kind

I've forgotten more about DADT than you'll ever know. Thought that would be know-it-all enough for ya.

Here's a link. This court case is the reason the Obama White House got off its lazy ass to pass and certify DADT repeal before an appellate court did it for them.

And you've still offered no proof that Dodd-Frank is doing anything right now. In fact, didn't former Senator Corzine's company go belly in the same way Lehman did in 2008? Obama has fixed NOTHING. We still have the same systemic problem, and uncritical Democrats happily link to a list of "accomplishments" when there are clearly no such accomplishments happening in the real world.

 

Who do you like for Pres?

Any real progressive or liberal in this state needs to withdraw from working with the DNC and begin to work against Obama immediately.

What would this look like? Can you flesh it out a little more in terms of what it would mean for people who wanted to sign on to this idea?

  • What actions specifically would you like to see them take right now?
  • What actions specifically would you like to see them take over the next several months?
  • What does a realistic win for this plan of action look like in Nov 2012?

I don't think you have to sell anyone on Blue NC on the value of electing people who are less conservative to office. But if you can draw a realistic path towards getting someone who fits that bill into the White House for the next 4 years I don't think I'd be the only one interested in seeing that. As much as I find short comings with the effectiveness of the current President in some areas, I absolutely don't want Romney to be the guy picking who is on SCOTUS when they're the people who get to decide matters like Citizens United and probably in the coming years will be making decisions on DOMA.

Give some detailed and specific responses to each of those 3 bullet points, point by point, in a way that doesn't make it more likely that Romney is picking Supreme Court members, and you'll have made a large step towards getting me in your camp.

Ah, the scary Supreme Court argument. Here's why it's false.

News flash:

The US Supreme Court has moved to the right under Obama.

I'm open to a discussion that the Justice Souter for Justice Sotomayor trade may be an even one.

But the Justice Stevens for Justice Kagan trade is nothing but a move to the right.

So no. I have no confidence that Obama will move the Court to the left since he's already moved it to the right.

 

What comes next?

What would this look like? Can you flesh it out a little more in terms of what it would mean for people who wanted to sign on to this idea?

  • What actions specifically would you like to see them take right now?
  • What actions specifically would you like to see them take over the next several months?
  • What does a realistic win for this plan of action look like in Nov 2012?

What comes next: A movement back to the center in this country

...and eventually a movement to the left.

I've said what I want people to do, and you've quoted it. I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Any real progressive or liberal in this state needs to withdraw from working with the DNC and begin to work against Obama immediately.

That means, don't work for the DNC. Tell people who ask you to work/help/donate to the convention or the DNC that you're not working for a right-wing DNC machine, and tell them to take that message to their masters.

Your focus on Nov 2012 illustrates our difference. I care more about the movement of the country back to the center than about reelecting a right-wing "Democrat" who is just fine moving the political discussion to places even Barry Goldwater didn't go.

 

Thanks, this is starting

Tell people who ask you to work/help/donate to the convention or the DNC that you're not working for a right-wing DNC machine, and tell them to take that message to their masters.

Thanks, this is starting to get at what I was hoping to see, which was more specifics in your call to action of "work against Obama".

Are there any additional immediate and specific actions, beyond withholding support from the convention or DNC, that are needed to take us from where we are now to the more center-left government you envision? What about intermediate actions? What about long term actions? How long will it take for this vision to be realized?

I don't think President Obama is perfect, but I think he's better than having something like a Romney-Santorum ticket in the Oval Office. That is something concrete, something with a time line, something with obvious political organizing steps that I can take over the next weeks, months, and year to make happen.

If I'm going to abandon that I need to be convinced, not that Obama is bad, but that there is some realistic strategic plan in place that I could try to follow to end up with this more center-left government you envision, I need to have some sense of how long it will take, and some sense of what I should be doing from now until then to make it happen.

I need some steps filled in between "work against Obama" ... and then we get a center-left government.

Screw dumping Obama...

...I want to know when NC Liberals and the Occupy folks will try and occupy the Democratic Party and take it back from OFA and all the other groups who started to tear down Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and Jerry Meek's 100 county strategy starting in June 2008.

We can see how well their strategy worked. No coat-tails for Obama other than for Bev Perdue - no judges and no other new Council of State seats. No bigger majority in the NCGA - in fact we lost one seat in the NC Senate.

2009 - State and County parties asleep at the wheel, except for all that money and personnel poured into Charlotte to elect Anthony Foxx by 3K votes.

2010 - a freaking disaster! We are in the place we are in this state with all the garbage the Republicans are pushing and all over the rest of the country precisely because we let a bunch of koolaid drinkers run the election.

Here in Wake in 2011 - the koolaid drinkers are still running things, backed up with all those big money private donors and special interest groups. Little to no change in Cary and Raleigh - except that there is one less Democrat on the Raleigh City Council - replaced by yet another UNA candidate. Let's see if all that money buying one switched seat on the Wake School Board is worth the damage done to the Wake County Democratic Party.

Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
http://noirvnc.blogspot.com
http://statewideirvnc.blogspot.com

Most of your analysis of the failure is correct, but

...your solution is not.

OFA = Obama (and Third Way "Democrats", etc).

So dump them both.

Why would I wish to rebuild (retake?) an infrastructure that you describe as so easily taken before? It's illogical.

I've got my vote. When the "Democratic" party wants my once steady vote for it, it can come back left to find me. That path is more simple and direct.

 

Just to give you an idea

of how binding this DoJ pre-clearance actually is, here's a little recent history:

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census
There were a number of lawsuits related to the North Carolina 2000 census redistricting process, including Bartlett v. Strickland, which made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.[24]

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., Feb. 20, 2002) : On February 15, 2002, four days after the Justice Department told the State that its House and Senate district plans met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, a state court ruled that the plans violated a provision of the state constitution that requires counties to be kept whole when drawing state legislative districts. The court requested the parties to submit a proposed deadline for the General Assembly to redraw the districts and offered to draw a remedial plan for the 2002 election if the deadline was not met or if so directed by the appellate court.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94P02 (N.C. Feb. 26, 2002) : Without lifting the stay of the Superior Court order holding the North Carolina State House and Senate plans enacted in 2001 to be unconstitutional by dividing too many counties, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered an expedited appeal schedule.

Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson I), No. 94PA02, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (Apr. 30, 2002), stay denied 535 U.S. 1301 (May 17, 2002) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, in chambers) : The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court holding that North Carolina State Senate and State House plans were unconstitutional because of a state constitutional provision saying that no counties could be divided, but said that the no-divided-counties provision has limited applicability. The district court was ordered to hold an expedited hearing on whether the General Assembly was capable of redrawing the districts in time for the 2002 election. If not, the district court was authorized to impose a temporary plan of its own for use in the 2002 election, subject to being precleared.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., May 31, 2002) : After the General Assembly enacted new House and Senate plans on May 17, Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins threw them out and drew his own.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02 (N.C. June 4, 2002) : The North Carolina Supreme Court denied the State’s request to stay enforcement of the Superior Court’s order and a motion to expedite hearing the State’s appeal.

Board of Elections v. United States, No. 02-1174 (D.D.C. June 27, 2002) : The complaint sought preclearance for both the North Carolina Supreme Court decision of April 30, 2002 in the Stephenson case and the interim plans adopted by the Superior Court. A three-judge panel said that the federal court in two pending cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina would have authority to grant relief. The court noted that the Department of Justice would have a decision on the Section 5 submittals of the Stephenson case and the Jenkins plan by the week of July 8, 2002.

Sample v Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 , (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2002) : A three-judge court unanimously denied the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction to conduct the 2002 state legislative election under the precleared legislatively-enacted 2001 plan, rather than the interim state court ordered plan. On July 12, 2002, the Department of Justice precleared both the new interpretation of the North Carolina constitutional requirement to preserve whole counties announced in the Stephenson decision and the new legislative districts drawn by Judge Jenkins.

Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson II), No. 94PA02-2, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (July 16, 2003) : On July 16, 2003, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court holding both Senate and House plans invalid.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (Apr. 22, 2004) : On November 25, 2003, along with the new legislative redistricting plan it enacted in compliance with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision of July 16, 2003, the General Assembly enacted a new law that any action involving redistricting lies exclusively with the Superior Court, Wake County and that legal challenges to legislative redistricting plans must be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. If a court were to find a redistricting plan flawed, the General Assembly would have to be given an opportunity to correct any defects before the court imposed a substitute plan. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law.

Pender County v. Bartlett, No. 103A06, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : The 2003 General Assembly legislative redistricting plan was challenged by Pender County, which was divided between House Districts 16 and 18. A three-judge panel decided that dividing Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed.

Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : On appeal, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the Court held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require creation of a district in which a minority population has a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its choice if the minority would constitute less than a majority of the voting age population in the district.

Wonder what the court cases say about splitting precincts...

...and creating election administration nightmares in large paper ballot counties that will need more than 40 different ballot styles across the the county? 40 is the magic number, because the ES&S M100 precinct op-scanners can't be programmed to read more than 40 ballot styles.

Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
http://noirvnc.blogspot.com
http://statewideirvnc.blogspot.com