BREAKING LEAKED! Ut GOP Senator Admits Gerrymandering
Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on October 6, 2011
Utah – BREAKING: PRIDEinUtah was just informed that during a meeting with the Senate Democratic Caucus this, Republican Senator Ralph Okerlund admitted that the GOP are drawing maps designed specifically to ensure Republican victory.
Republican Senator Ralph Okerlund
In what can only be described as a moment of conscience, the Communications Director for the Senate Dems, Emily Hollingshead, tells us that Republican Senator Ralph Okerlund admitted to the Senate Democrats the reason why the Republicans are only now releasing their final congressional map (which will undoubtably pass) is that they were fighting to find a way to ensure that each of the 4 congressional seats had a 62% Republican majority of voters.
Further leaks from inside the Legislature tell us that it was a directive of the Republican National Committee that each congressional map be gerrymandered into districts ensuring Republican victory so that Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson would be unable to continue serving. So much for the dog and pony show of “public input.” The only thing that actually mattered was that they satisfied the RNC.
Finally. Out loud and proud, the Republican Power Brokers are admitting that they have zero interest in what’s best for Utah, zero interest in the people of Utah, and 100% interest in making sure that they continue to hold domination over the state.
Whether you’re a Republican, Independent or a Democrat, you should be furious. We do not elect our officials to be party hacks first, we elect them to be Utahans first!
The final public hearing will be tomorrow at 9am at the Utah State Capitol, all members of our great state should be there to tell these power-hungry partisans exactly what we think of them!
"Eric, trying to have this (civil rights) conversation with you is ultimately like trying to teach a pig to dance, it just annoys the pig. So Eric, sorry to annoy you."
-Paul Mero, The Sutherland Institute.
Told you.
Spread the word brother!
Don’t be so sensationalist without naming your source.
Not shocked. Not surprised at all. Thanks for posting this so quickly. Cite some sources, please and if you can. This is important news and I want to share it with credibility.
We should demand the resignation of all members of the redistricting committee. If they want to participate in these kind of underhanded and dishonest tactics. Then I say good bye and good riddance to the crooked lot.
“…it was a directive of the Republican National Committee that each [Utah] congressional map be gerrymandered into districts ensuring Republican victory….”
And, the Democratic National Committee didn’t direct the Utah Democratic Party to do the same?
The UDP protests, debates, town meetings and threats of lawsuits weren’t intended to ensure Democratic victory?
Eric, as many Democrats in California, New York and Illinois have said to Republicans for decades, elections have consequences. And yes, redistricting is a partisan affair precisely because most states give that authority to their legislatures which — surprise — are controlled by a majority of one party or another. This isn’t news.
And yes, the U.S. Supreme Court justices have admitted that such redistricting is a partisan affair and is constitutional as long as congressional districts are balanced in geography and demographics if not by partisanship. Unfair is NOT the same thing as illegal or unconstitutional.
In short, Eric, there is no there there in your argument unless you are willing to blame both parties of the same activity. But, I doubt you would ever say that the party hacks at the Democratic Party might be occasionally motivated by unfair politics, would you? If Utah Democrats want more influence in redistricting, they need to start winning some elections. It is that simple.
David – That couldn’t be a dumber argument. You’re saying that the Utah Democrats, who are demanding a independent and non-partisan redistricting commission are acting like political hacks? Oh and hey, Gerrymandering is indeed both unconstitutional and illegal. Nice try, but sounds like you’re just having fun regurgitating talking points rather than actually paying attention to what’s going on.
Oh, and I like the last comment about winning elections. Nice. Democrats have 43% of the voting population in this state, but only 20% representation. Gee….. why don’t Dems win more elections in this State? Oh yeah… Gerrymandering!
Once again I ask that, if you are so enthusiastic about state non-partisan redistricting commissions, why aren’t you the same to counter the gerrymandering by Democrats in states like California, New York and Illinois? Or, do you admit that Democrats do indeed play the same games as Republicans?
The idea that courts in the United States may consider challenges to “partisan gerrymandering” is relatively new and without an articulated standard. As such, courts have been reluctant to consider partisan gerrymanders.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion about the matter of Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) determined that, while courts may consider such challenges, “political gerrymandering, such as occurred in this case, is properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.” But, added that “[e]ven if a state legislature redistricts with the specific intention of disadvantaging one political party’s election prospects, there has been no unconstitutional violation against members of that party unless the redistricting does in fact disadvantage it at the polls. As noted, a mere lack of proportionate results in one election cannot suffice in this regard.”
The Court opinion about the matter of Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) determined that all redrawn Pennsylvania congressional districts weren’t unconstitutional because “political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist.”
The Court opinion about the matter of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) determined that a redrawn Texas congressional district which “amounts to vote dilution violative of ยง2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965″ was nonetheless not unconstitutional because “the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.”
I believe that these opinions mirror exactly what I meant — dumber or not — when I wrote that “redistricting is a partisan affair and is constitutional as long as congressional districts are balanced in geography and demographics if not by partisanship.”
This is the first time that I have heard so many U.S. Supreme Court opinions called “talking points.” And no, it is neither fun nor unfun to state facts. They have a tendency to just exist.
As for the inability of a proportionate number of Utah Democrats to win election, I suspect the fact that no Democratic candidates ran for election in 2010 in 17 state legislative districts has more to do with it than gerrymandering. When the UDP stops gifting a full 16 percent of the Utah Legislature to Republicans, we might see some improvement.
I used to argue that point when I was a member of the Utah Democratic candidate-recruitment committees, but the party officers claimed that too many candidates only drained the coffers and hurt fund raising for other candidates. Forty-three percent Democratic Utahns or not, the party has its tough choices.
Not everything is the fault of Republicans, Eric.
David, not everything is the fault of Republicans… but most crap IS their fault.