Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Politics Gerrymandering Republicans Go After Senate Democratic Stars
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM
The map throws Kyle—the Senate Democratic leader from Memphis—into the same district as right-wing crusader Brian Kelsey. It adds the Republican-leaning parts of Bradley County to Berke's southeast Tennessee district. Berke, an articulate liberal, is seen as one of the state Democratic Party's few rising stars.
Roberts, who represents Diane Black's old Middle Tennessee district, goes into the district of GOP Sen. Jim Summerville. Summerville's not standing for reelection until 2014, but Roberts' term is up this year, so that means Roberts is done after this year's session. Both Summerville and Roberts were fluke winners in their elections.
"We were committed to drawing a fair and legal state senate map and that is exactly what we have done.” said Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey. “The map emphasizes regional integrity and adheres to state and federal laws as well as court precedent. I look forward to concluding the redistricting process swiftly and efficiently as soon as we go into session next week.”
Update: “We are reviewing the maps presented to us and are consulting our caucus members regarding the proposed changes,” Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Lowe Finney said. “This is the first time that our members have seen any official redistricting maps, and the first opportunity to view this specific map. We are committed to an open and public process as this issue greets us at the beginning of a new legislative session, and we will work to resolve any redistricting issues in a fair and timely manner so that we can move forward to the remaining business of the General Assembly."
Comments (23)
Showing 1-23 of 23
like
dislike
I would suggest that if one party does not like losing seats that they consider adopting a policy of representing people not living in shrinking, blighted districts. How dare the Republicans follow the absurd policy of one man-one vote and increase representation for the communities that have the gall to be prosperous and growing.
The 1%ers are behind this, they are growing while the 99%ers are shrin....hey wait a minute if my math is right that would mean that the 99% are not really the 99%, just some bogus camping club slash drum circle.
You cannot make a state that votes overwhelmingly Republican enact a district map that keeps you relevant. Your shrinking legislation numbers accurately reflect your shrinking popularity in the state. We are just a few years away from having primaries decide the election of statewide offices.
I really found it funny that Jeff needed to designate a liberal as "articulate." That is a wonderfully passive-aggressive way of saying the other liberals are not articulate.
Hmmm, 4 posts in a row from Woods about Republican redistricting.
I wonder how much attention he paid to the Democrats doing the same in all the long years they were in charge of the legislature.
well hopefully now that the GOP has unprecedented control we'll see welfare states like Tennessee and Mississippi return/ refuse all the federal funds they siphon off from wealthier states. hmmm.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/fed-t…
There is no such thing as welfare "states" - only welfare people.
States don't pay taxes - people do.
And states don't receive welfare - people do.
Take the money. The north owes it, they have had their boot on the neck of the South for 150 years. Not only that wvfii if the Repubs sweep the election we can get more.
In fact perhaps we should consider secession, the Old Confederacy, the West, leave Calif and the E coast to fend for themselves.
There is no good excuse for dividing Maury County as they have done. We should have one rep.
Aside from all that, we are "represented" by The Liars' Club. Party affiliation is irrelevant.
The new state-senate situation is better for Maury, though I don't think the prospects for a Maury-based senator are better. And I would not be surprised to be represented by a Democratic state senator after this. But that is going to be true for most in this state eventually, once the Democrats gain the numbers via immigrants and their offspring. That day isn't far off.
I've predicted 2012 is the last chance for a Republican or any conservative, faux or true, to be elected president in this country in my lifetime. We shall see what we shall see, as my daddy used to say.
The Republicans will have themselves to thank for their demise.
I have reverted to the observer-reporter. My conscience is clear ... except for the cereal and carrots and French onion dip my two-year-old granddaughter had for supper. (I'm cooked out.)
Have a good year, y'all. Enjoy every day. Every simple thing.
People have been predicting the end of Republican presidents since Roosevelt. Curiosously though the Republicans have been in control on Pennsylvania Ave a lot more often than the Democrats, even when they went decades without control of Capitol Hill. Clinton was supposed to have ended the Republicans with his two 43ish% victories. Then Al Gore. Were Johnson or Kennedy really going to end the run of Republicans with Southern Democrats going off the societal deep end?
You are buying into the 99% hype. They aren't even 1/3 of that. Look at the red maps.
I so tired of hearing the liberals whine. These are the same people who have no problem killing babies( abortion rights , planned un- parenthood) , but show up at the prison when it is time to execute a murderer and say all life counts. You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Wow! Tony Paredes and conservatives have cornered the market on reasonableness. Oh shit, did that sound like whining?
Hey smoothy, my pic and name on mine, as most libs your side is far gone you wont even stand by your words with name or face. No need to hide behind a pic and madeup handle.
Gilbert, every single "Red" state in America except TX receives more from the federal funds than the people in those states pay to the federal government. you can dress it up any way you like it, but those are the cold, hard facts.
now. let's see if the unprecedented majorities of Republicans in states like Mississippi and Tennessee are going to live by their ostensible philosophies, or if they're going to hem and haw while feeding at the federal trough. they are clowns clowns just like the others. it's only 'socialism' when the other guy is doing it.
Yup. Tennessee couldn't balance its budget without federal money.
wvfii, as is ALWAYS the case, the facts are whatever I say they are.
And the fact is that states do not receive or pay anything. Individuals ultimately pay for everything,
If you want to make a claim about who is subsidizing who categorized by political affilitation, you would have to determine the total dollar amount of federal taxes paid by each individual, the total dollar value of expliciit direct federal services received by each individual calculated on a user fee basis and the voting pattern of each individual and then aggregate all that data up to determine it on an aggregate basis.
Calling a state blue doesn't prove that the majority of the federal taxes paid by people in that state came from blue voters. Half the people in the country don't pay any federal income taxes. And there's no doubt that plenty of them are blue voters.
"the facts are whatever I say they are."
ahhh, of course. when will i learn?
let's talk about where those federal dollars go. some like to say that they all go to lazy minorities. and you know what? that may be the case in some instances...
but if you really start looking at how some of these federal dollars are spent -- agri-subsidies that go to pay farmers NOT to grow crops, paying for the medicare and the social security for old people carrying signs to the rally reading "get the government out of my medicare", etc -- you really start to get a clearer picture of what's going on. and as to why "half the people in the country don't pay any federal income taxes", let's take a look at that, too, shall we?
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/04/15/off-t…
(^btw Mr. Hennessey is an avowed conservative Republican)
so a lot of working families pulling in >60k, who give to their church, have a couple of kids, maybe a mortgage *gasp* DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! <- frankly, this sounds like a lot of people i know personally in Mississippi and Tennessee. (and they all think Obama is a socialist, of course).
but hey, man, the facts are whatever YOU say they are. and might I add, you write incredibly for a four year old! are you sure your daddy's not helping you?
Glad to see Donna Locke is now mad enough to run herself.
One would think having 2 reps versus one would be a good
thing for any county? I guess these stories are going to be
the everyday story to replace those hibernating "Occupiers".
with evil Republican legislators!
wvfii, nothing you have posted disproves my point.
In order to make a claim as to who is subsidizing who, you have to find out exactly what each person paid in federal taxes on an absolute dollar basis, what federal services each person received on an absolute dollar basis, what each person's voting record was and then aggregate all that up.
Talking about some people getting farm price supports or some people not paying taxes because they've got kids and a mortgage and claiming that "sounds like" a lot of people you know doesn't cut it.
frankly, i'm not really sure what your point is.
are you suggesting that the 47% of Americans who "don' t pay federal income taxes" are literally on welfare?
or are you suggesting that the aggregate populations of red states DO NOT pay less in federal taxes they their respective states gets back from the fed?
because if you're suggesting either, then your point is easily disprovable by *actual* facts, not *your* "facts".
or maybe you are suggesting that republicans, regardless of location, pay more in federal taxes than democrats? if so, good luck proving it. in fact, i would wager the opposite is truer. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/…
I have already stated my point several times.
It is that talking about "red" and blue" states doesn't constitute proof of actual blue voters subsidizing actual red voters.
As for whether people who pay no federal income taxes are on welfare, they certainly are in an economic sense. They are getting the benefit of all the generic services such as military protection that everybody else gets and that are funded by income taxes. So they are on welfare even if they aren't on the food stamp program or are getting Medicaid or some other suich thing.
