tom

We in the States usually detest the federal government stepping all over our State rights,

How about a few concrete examples of this Tom.
The most egregious examples of states rights being trampled also seem to correspond with some pretty important civil rights legislation. After all, slavery was a states right... Until the Federal government decided it wasn't. Then, Jim Crow Laws, which have a direct relation to voter ID laws and gerrymandering, were eliminated by Federal action.

I suspect that most Americans actually couldn't define whats a states right and whats under federal authority. And that where these states rights have been directly impacted by federal action, the federal involvement is generally very popular,

My guess would be that the "States right" was about the protection of a state law that generally was antiethical to the idea of liberal democracy. laws that either discriminated OR ensured that citizens within the State are treated unequally...
But, I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can define other cases of unpopular instances of "The federal government stepping all over States rights".

If you want to require fairer maps, who should do the requiring and the checking?

easy, Gun control laws is a current example
another recent example is marijuana laws
gay marriage laws

another example from the recent past were speed limits, the federal govt (for a long while) would hold funding unless states speed limits were maxed out at 55mph, while not an actual law it was the federal govt taking away rights, they could set any limit but not receive millions in funding ...same difference of the feds stepping all over the states.

similar, the drinking age being 21 is a federal mandate
death penalties, assisted suicide, the list goes on and on

as far as who should draw the maps and do the checking, therein lies the rub!
it will never be totally fair, and parties will always complain but these snaked areas that make no sense are just stupid I agree 100%. Oh, another federal issue that plays into this topic, the feds required Texas have such gerrymandered areas of minority zones. So where you want the feds to eliminate the practice, here you have them insisting upon it!?

Minority majority districts are indeed stupid. I can kind of see the logic behind them given the way that race has historically been such a charged subject in America, but ultimately they do more harm than good and can only encourage ghettoisation.

tom

easy, Gun control laws is a current example
another recent example is marijuana laws
gay marriage laws

The refuge of opponents to gun control is the 2nd amendment. Not states rights. Its a federal issue for this reason.
I'll give you marijuana.
Gay Marriage? If you are refering to DOMA, I guess. Although its soon to be struck down in Scotus...
Its such a bad law that it can't be defended.

Oh no, no, no
gun control is up to each state and local municipality. The Feds attempt to ban certain types across the nation, that sir is a federal vs states rights issue.
and you only help when you say something will be struck down by the supreme court. what about the others I mentioned? These are what came to me very quickly, I was 100% correct in saying the federal govt is stepping all over states rights.

tom

gun control is up to each state and local municipality. The Feds attempt to ban certain types across the nation, that sir is a federal vs states rights issue.

SInce 1968 when the federal government enacted the Gun Control Act, there has been federal control over interstate commerce and traffic of guns. And there have been federal bans on specific weapons. You can't make, import or transport them...
There has been a legal clash between the Second Amendment, which the courts have generally said gives individuals the right to use and buy guns, and the 10th Amendment, which allows states to pass laws regulating any matter the federal government has not ruled on – including firearms. However there is also a clash between states laws....
You know that Utah for instance , gun permits are issued to anyone who is not a felon, attends a class and pays a registration fee. Last year, gun permit sales generated $2.5 million in revenue for the state’s coffers. This is a blow to states that want to exercise stricter regional control over guns.
The House has, considered legislation that would force other states to recognize their permits to carry - so if a gun owner had a permit to carry in Utah, which has relatively relaxed gun laws, and traveled to California, which has strict gun laws, California would not be able to punish the gun owner for any violations of its laws
Therefore whatever state that has the least restrictions would be the law of the entire country.
The problem is not that States Rights are being impeded upon by the Federal government. The problem is that an uneven checkerboard of rights, from state to state, is impossible with a portable product like guns...
Moreover, the specific right that is protected in the constitution is the personal right. Granted to all citizens in the federal republic. But, although federal law is aimed at adding guns to the 1968 framework, it hasn't affected the individual nature of each states gun laws.
Should it? Probably, if you want an effective law. Otherwise .... certain states could become licensors of convenience that allows people to contravene local and state laws...
A pretty good example of one of the weaknesses of a federation.

tom

and you only help when you say something will be struck down by the supreme court. what about the others I mentioned?

You only mentioned three. I gave you marijuana...
The reason defence of Marriage is likely to be struck down has nothing to do with states rights. Its that it contravenes the 14th amendment. Even after its struck down, states will still have the authority to make marriage law, at least until SCOTUS rules on the applicability of the 14h amendment to laws in states that ban gay marriage... If that occurs, as it did with inter racial marriage, states laws banning gay marriage will have been ended not by the Federal government but by the Constitution. And the only Federal law, DOMA doesn't apply to anything but Federal recognition of states marriage licenses... will also suffer the same... States laws (rights) haven't been touched.
Marriage law, is actually a pretty good example of the strengths of a federation. Where certain states start to increase the definition of liberty, in this case the liberty to marry the adult of ones choosing regardless of the sexual orientation of the marrying couple ...that liberty leaks across state borders and liberties increase.

speed limits were mentioned, drinking age was mentioned, several more as well.
and again, you strengthen my argument when you tout how the federal govt enacted the gun control act, that sir is another example of the federal government trampling over states rights, thanks for the help!

tom

you strengthen my argument when you tout how the federal govt enacted the gun control act

So the fact that the federal government controls interstate commerce of guns..... that strengthens your arguement how>? Hasn't the Federal government always had jurisdiction over interstate commerce?

GMTom wrote:as far as who should draw the maps and do the checking, therein lies the rub!
it will never be totally fair, and parties will always complain but these snaked areas that make no sense are just stupid I agree 100%. Oh, another federal issue that plays into this topic, the feds required Texas have such gerrymandered areas of minority zones. So where you want the feds to eliminate the practice, here you have them insisting upon it!?

Interesting. But who has largely been the arbiter, and the least unfair one? If you include the judiciary, that would be the Federal level of government.

On 'minority-majoroty' districts, I agree that they are distorting in themselves (although they appear to be perfectly constitutional and are imposed by the Feds, so citing them does kind of undercut the argument that States should do as they please and can because 10th Amendment). I get the history that lead to them (similar to Affirmative Action), and I understand how they can be used and misused. I would like Sass and probably many others argue that they should no longer be necessary.

But at the same time, they do not appear to be the main issue when it comes to gerrymandering. It would not be hard to have minority-majority districts that were also not gerrymandered. And we see examples of gerrymandering in areas without them.

And gerrymandering by States is an interference in the relationship between voters (that will be US citizens, with Rights) and the Federal government. It would seem to be in some cases an attempt to game the system for political benefit. Now, we can certainly object to the same thing being done by Federal politicians, and I would disagree with gerrymandering by them on the same basic grounds as I would hope you do.

However, not liking something is not the same as doing anything about it. The reluctance to look for a solution in case it "empowers the Federal government" may well to Americans be a rational approach to a very scary potential problem. To me, however, it looks like making excuses to avoid the actual solution.

My solution would not be giving Federal politicians the power. It would be to set agreed and fair rules for boundary setting, and to hand it over to an apolitical commission. I suspect that to do this it would take some Federal law making (but there's tons of precedent for that), and sure, it would reduce the ability of local power blocs in States to fiddle the boundaries to suit themselves and individual politicians.

I would also remove the rule that says a candidate has to live in the District. Let people choose if they want someone from outside to represent them or not, and restrict it to just the State. A lot of gerrymandering is about keeping particular addresses within 'safe' seats to suit particular politicians.

Danivon ...we agree!
Rickyp ...wow, you don't get it do you? Your examples of the federal government stepping in over and over and over shows exactly what I stated, they have gained more power over the years and trample on states rights more and more. Yes, you can argue they may have been "right" but that's not the point, the point is they have and continue to take away more and more and more states power. That sir is a fact, you can argue all you like about why, if it's right, if they have a legal reason to do so, but the fact is the feds have indeed trampled all over states rights every chance they get!
and yes they have ruled over interstate commerce, the problem you seem to ignore is the ever growing scope of power the feds are and have gained control over

GMTom wrote:Danivon ...we agree!

On what? You've been arguing against me up till now...

danivon wrote: It would be to set agreed and fair rules for boundary setting,

Well for the most part there are agreed and fair rules for boundary settings. The problem come in the abuse of those rules and which trump other.

danivon wrote:and to hand it over to an apolitical commission.

We have had this conversation before I believe. I still hold to the position there is no such thing as an apolitical board as it's members would be reliant upon politicians for appointment.

danivon wrote:I would also remove the rule that says a candidate has to live in the District.

I also believe this may already be the case. At least here in Pennsylvania. I don't remember if it was in 2010 or 2012 but there was a Congressional Candidate for PA-12 (I believe) whose residence was something like 1,000 feet over the District boundary.

This is an interesting topic though. Reminds me of a discussion I had about 3 or 4 years ago. Cokie Roberts wrote a column about how when she was a kid, Members of Congress would move with their whole family to D.C. when elected. Their kids would go to school and participate in organized activities, i.e. sports or scouting, together so the members all knew each other and were friends. However, now Members of Congress only stay in D.C. while in session and spend weekends and recesses at home in the District where their families stay. Robert's thesis was this change was a leading cause of the rancorous partisanship we see.

I started to ask people what they thought was better. A Congessman that lived in D.C. and only visited the District or a Congressman who lived in the District and only visited D.C. Almost everybody said they preferred the latter over the former.

archduke

I still hold to the position there is no such thing as an apolitical board as it's members would be reliant upon politicians for appointment.

Most modern stable democracies created electoral commissions in order to create a neutral bureaucracy. The only reason this hasn't happened in the US is that, with a two party system, at some point the party is in power in some states and is unwilling to give up these advantages.
If most other stable democracies can create an effective neutral bureaucracies and end most issues of fairness in the process, the US could too, What it takes is political will and the willingness to put the value of fair elections over the value of power to manipulate the system.
That gerrymandering and voter suppression isn't entirely common in the US suggests that there is likely enough faith in the value of fair elections, that it might be possible if a senior politician were willing to make it an issue. Not very sexy issue. But probably pretty popular ad safe.

Example

Professional, non-partisan and independent
A non-partisan electoral management body is the key to an impartial electoral process. Several factors contribute to the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer, including the agency's arm's-length relationship with the government and the budgetary mechanisms that fund its work, which are outlined in greater detail in a later section. The Chief Electoral Officer reports to Parliament and communicates with the Governor in Council through the minister designated for the purposes of the Canada Elections Act.
Running an election involves a large number of election officers, from returning officers who are responsible for a whole electoral district, to poll clerks who help voters at every ballot box. Election officers must be politically neutral – they may not favour one political party or candidate over any other.
Special precautions are taken to ensure that no political bias affects the administration of elections. All election workers must take an oath to uphold voters' rights and the secrecy of the vote, and to perform their duties without favouritism. Given the impartial and politically sensitive nature of the office, the Chief Electoral Officer is the only adult Canadian citizen not allowed to vote in federal elections.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... lang=e#a12

Here is an interesting article that puts forth the argument the large number of Republican safe districts is not due to Gerrymandering. Here is the thesis paragraph of the article.

Republicans reside in safely conservative districts for a simple reason: It's difficult to draw competitive districts in a deeply polarized country. Americans are geographically segregated along a variety of demographic lines, and most demographic groups side decidedly with one party or the other. African Americans, for instance, are heavily concentrated in urban areas, while white evangelical Christians dominate the Southern countryside. Since "fair" congressional districts preserve geographic integrity and tend to promote homogenous districts, even a fair redistricting process would leave Republicans in deeply conservative districts.