Politics

10176 readers

13 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

115

Supreme Court rejects theory that would have meant radical changes to election rules (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 1 year ago by the_frumious_bandersnatch@programming.dev to c/politics

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rejected the notion that state legislatures have unlimited power to determine the rules for federal elections and draw partisan congressional maps without interference from state courts.

How much effect will this have on existing congressional maps and upcoming elections?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] the_frumious_bandersnatch@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Consider that the NC supreme court had overturned the original ruling that was being appealed, making this case moot. They could have simply passed on this case and we'd be at exactly the same place.

For doing absolutely nothing and clearing the lowest possible bar, they are getting credit for "moderating". News agency proclaiming this a "win for a democracy" and showing the "even handedness" of the court... That they took up the case at all is why we're here!!