Comment on F*ck off Arnie, you're out of your element!

flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• ceenote@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  It would be a full rewrite of the first article of the constitution, so it’s not really on the table.

  source

  • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So I went and looked it up

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; …

    If I’m interpreting this correctly, representatives are proportioned among states based on population. But there is no provision specifying that within a state the election must be based on electoral districts.

    And according to Wikipedia

    States entitled to more than one representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967 pursuant to the act titled An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting.[21] Before that law, general ticket representation was used by some states.

    There doesn’t seem to be any constitutional requirements for electoral districts. It’s regulated by a law but not constitution, which should make it easier to modify.

    source

    • protist@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      They’re saying the constitution explicitly delegates this power to the states, meaning in order to enact something in this area nationally, it would require a constitutional amendment

      source
    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It’s regulated per state. What Texas is doing, while highly unethical and, frankly, fraudulent, is entirely legal and up to the Texas state legislature to decide. Only the federal government may supersede it and only with a change to the constitution which prescribes this power to the states. So, for the Texas legislature, yes it’s easier to modify the law. To change it without them, it is absolutely not easier.

      source

      • CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Well, kinda- gerrymandering g itself was illegal until the current Supreme Court (well, the GOP part) decided to gut election laws for Trump

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ceenote@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It wouldn’t mean much as long as the senate still exists.

      source
  • Zachariah@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    never heard that
    please explain

    source

    • ceenote@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Article 1 of the US constitution lays out how the Congress is structured and what powers it should have. It can be changed by passing constitutional amendments, but the bar for passing those is so high that it’s not realistic to think the current US Congress could or would change it for the better right now, for a whole bunch of reasons that are pretty evident.

      source
    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Article one is where the founders put the design of the structure of the government, including the bullshit used to put their thumb in the scale of democracy, along with how they’re elected, what powers they (should) have and the limits of it (when they choose to enforce it).

      source
  • blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Thats what amendments are for.

    source