379

Voters have no right to fair elections, NC lawmakers say as they seek to dismiss gerrymandering suit (www.wral.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by cultsuperstar@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lawyers representing state legislative leaders were in court Thursday in Raleigh, arguing to throw out an anti-gerrymandering lawsuit that targets the state's new political districts.

The lawsuit argues that the state constitution guarantees the right to fair elections, and it says the new districts violate that promise. The Republican-led legislature argues that no such right exists, since it's impossible to define what "fair" means.

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 147 points 2 weeks ago

We have a right to bear arms, but we don’t have a right to fair elections?

The solution is left as an exercise to the reader.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

They just don’t seem to be able to not drive everything there, do they.

Okay MAGAs. You continuously demanded it.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Something about "shall not be infringed", and they couldn't care less about anything else.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 80 points 2 weeks ago

Well the alternative to fair elections is political violence. Choose wisely, the people enacting that violence could be a wildcard for any ideology.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

Hmm, don't see anywhere in the Constitution where elected officials have a "right to life". Your move NC.

[-] ryantown@lemmy.world 78 points 2 weeks ago

Republicans haven't wanted fair elections in decades.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago

Or… ever…

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago

Well, unless you count the time they used to be the democratic party before everything was switched.

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 19 points 2 weeks ago

In a fair election that everyone voted in, there wouldn't be any republicans. They have to cheat to be in power, what does that say?

[-] dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

I wish I had neighbors like yours.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 45 points 2 weeks ago

The Stop the Steal gang is inconsolable

[-] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

I'm sure that it will be fixed after this election and broken again before the next. The Supreme Court made sure of that back in 2022 with the Merrill v Milligan verdict where they admited that the racially gerrymandered districts were illegal, but allowed to be used anyways so long as it's relatively close to an election.

When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled. Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others.

Brett Kavanaugh

[-] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others.

I wonder if there's anything else that'd be unfair? You know like making the votes of citizens not reflect their demographics

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Boof said that?

[-] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

His post-grad ghost writers (“clerks”) said that.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 2 weeks ago

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

B-b-b-but Democrats struggle to win elections because their base doesn't vote!

this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024

379 points (99.7% liked)

politics

18059 readers

3089 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News