Never going to happen because there is no legal bases for it. What sections of the voting rights was violated? Wards ended up being fairly compact and racial make up of wards and city population is pretty even
- 9,566
I always get a laugh out of when someone says ‘never gonna happen’. Often represents self-soothing of insecurity about an issue. I get that you’re trying to say it’s unlikely but is it really impossible for some on the BoA to call for an investigation into the redistricting process in the light of new info.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022Never going to happen because there is no legal bases for it. What sections of the voting rights was violated? Wards ended up being fairly compact and racial make up of wards and city population is pretty even
If Reed's original proposal had been rammed through unchanged I could see a reason to maybe reconsider, but that's not how the process played out. There were many changes as the revisions progressed, and I think most people came out satisfied. It wouldn't have passed unanimously if the majority of people were looking for further debate.
Sure in the end everyone did what was the best they could under a deadline but that does not begin to convey that pres Reed and co. first spent their energies trying to reverse ward reduction and only at the eleventh hour when a legislative deadline was approaching did they finally get down to a hurried process.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022The map passed 28-0
He created a committee that excluded iirc all the progressive aldermen.
Thern there were the initial vague maps without street names that twitterverse had to decipher (do you all not remember this?, the resistance to public input which aldermen had to push for.
Found the following letter below where aldermen had to call out issues.
- 991
Honestly, this is probably a moot argument. If someone wants to challenge the new map process, they could do so now. But if they want to challenge it based upon Reed and others’ potential crimes, we’ll they’d need to wait for the actual criminal proceedings to occur first. Which won’t happen quickly, plus the eventual appeals. So if you want anything to change, it’s either based upon the facts of the 28-0 vote OR you have to wait for some corruption conviction down the line.
- 2,929
Seconding @dbInSouthCity here because he's absolutely correct on this. No redistricting laws were broken. Any inference of this idea does so without any legal foundation whatsoever. There's plenty of muck and crap that will be thrown around as these charges play out, but there's no need to foment more muck and crap out of clean cloth. I mean, if you really think this way, then I seriously recommend you talk with an attorney and inquire about filing a case. Either they're going to tell you there's no case to file, or they're going to ask for a whole lot of money up front because that'd be a case going nowhere other than expensive paperwork. IANAL, but I'll tell you now any suit would very likely be summary judgment where plaintiff is found to lack adequate standing.imran wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022I always get a laugh out of when someone says ‘never gonna happen’. Often represents self-soothing of insecurity about an issue. I get that you’re trying to say it’s unlikely but is it really impossible for some on the BoA to call for an investigation into the redistricting process in the light of new info.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022Never going to happen because there is no legal bases for it. What sections of the voting rights was violated? Wards ended up being fairly compact and racial make up of wards and city population is pretty evenimran wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022If Pres Reed does end up guilty as charged, maybe the whole redistricting process he lead could be challenged. Considering his leaked comments that seem to suggest essentially gerrymandering the wards to gain control of 10 of 14 future seats…
Yes sir! Thank you for that aggressively confident surety in your response. Any and all doubt will be squashed immediately!
( if only I was impressed by hollow bravado….)
( if only I was impressed by hollow bravado….)
^ You sound no different than either of them though…your opinion is only different.
The “hollow bravado” you call them out for sounds like you in most of your posts. “I know and understand everything and no one else does.” That’s basically your whole shtick.
The “hollow bravado” you call them out for sounds like you in most of your posts. “I know and understand everything and no one else does.” That’s basically your whole shtick.
- 9,566
I don't even know anyone that would have standing, certainly not the ones that voted for it and your average citizen probably doesn't, what are you going to sue for? Not being able to vote for a candidate you want to vote for? Which doesn't work since nobody has declared to run and by the time anyone does and the field is set it would be too late based on Purcell (can't change district too close to election) so best case would be for 2025 and ongone corporate wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2022Seconding @dbInSouthCity here because he's absolutely correct on this. No redistricting laws were broken. Any inference of this idea does so without any legal foundation whatsoever. There's plenty of muck and crap that will be thrown around as these charges play out, but there's no need to foment more muck and crap out of clean cloth. I mean, if you really think this way, then I seriously recommend you talk with an attorney and inquire about filing a case. Either they're going to tell you there's no case to file, or they're going to ask for a whole lot of money up front because that'd be a case going nowhere other than expensive paperwork. IANAL, but I'll tell you now any suit would very likely be summary judgment where plaintiff is found to lack adequate standing.imran wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022I always get a laugh out of when someone says ‘never gonna happen’. Often represents self-soothing of insecurity about an issue. I get that you’re trying to say it’s unlikely but is it really impossible for some on the BoA to call for an investigation into the redistricting process in the light of new info.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2022Never going to happen because there is no legal bases for it. What sections of the voting rights was violated? Wards ended up being fairly compact and racial make up of wards and city population is pretty even
Ald Clark-Hubbard has announced for the 10th (Filing is in December?). I'm unaware of a statement released by her on Reed.
- 2,056
Few political-minded people on TWT rumoring that there are more indictments coming... FWIW
- 134
I've heard the same...we'll see what rumors turn true...pattimagee wrote: ↑Jun 07, 2022Few political-minded people on TWT rumoring that there are more indictments coming... FWIW
Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming the developers/others that are "paying to play" will also face scrutiny?
Seems like a good time to be a lawyer in STL.
- 9,566
Public Official One from the Reed/JCM/Boyd indictment is Lacy Clay
K.W. is a long time Reed fixer Keith Willis
and it wouldn't surprised me if another alder gets picked up
K.W. is a long time Reed fixer Keith Willis
and it wouldn't surprised me if another alder gets picked up
- 285
How do we know it’s Clay? I mean it’s believable but I just haven’t seen it reporteddbInSouthCity wrote:Public Official One from the Reed/JCM/Boyd indictment is Lacy Clay
K.W. is a long time Reed fixer Keith Willis
and it wouldn't surprised me if another alder gets picked up
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would be good if more aldermen were indicted (in a way, depending on how you look at it). Goes back to what I said earlier on about cleaning house and rebuilding trust in local government. Sure, it'll be rough at first but at the end of the day, at least we would know most of the bad players are out.
- 2,419
Looks like the fallout from this is only just beginning.
I say good riddance to these con artists, their handlers and their lackeys. 70ish years of decline (and yes, there are plenty of ways by which the deck has been stacked against the City) demonstrate that the StL ruling class has failed. A thorough transfer of power to younger, less compromised and more open-minded and results-driven lawmakers is necessary for the City survive and thrive through the very serious challenges heading our way.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jun 07, 2022Would be good if more aldermen were indicted (in a way, depending on how you look at it). Goes back to what I said earlier on about cleaning house and rebuilding trust in local government. Sure, it'll be rough at first but at the end of the day, at least we would know most of the bad players are out.
- 1,642
To me, the most shocking thing about all this is that someone is actually doing something about it.
McKee is a result of government interference. Mill Creek is a result of government interference. Everything bad is a result of government interference and corruption.
And somebody asked about who's watching over the COVIDS money.
Pfft, good luck.
And somebody asked about who's watching over the COVIDS money.
Pfft, good luck.
Yes, it's been established that I'm a NON-VIOLENT anti-government extrem---, uh person. I don't need any history lessons on McKee or Mill Creek or Roosevelt. Continue. Pardon me...
I share your sentiment, especially regarding the COVID money. But the rest is just pure (confused) ideology.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Jun 07, 2022McKee is a result of government interference. Mill Creek is a result of government interference. Everything bad is a result of government interference and corruption.
And somebody asked about who's watching over the COVIDS money.
Pfft, good luck.
On who's behalf is the government interfering? Paul McKee's behalf. I'm sure "the government" didn't force him to do all that corruption. Rather he found government, and government stooges, as useful tools to achieve his private interests. Was Steve Stenger a saint before he got involved with "the Government?" No, he was born a weasel and a weasel he shall remain. He too found the government a useful tool to further his own interests. Other weasels use different tools; their private business, the local neighborhood association, the church, etc. That doesn't mean "church interference" caused whatever bad stuff said weasel did through it.
The problem is not some nefarious supernatural entity called "the government" that goes about interfering in the otherwise benevolent activities of virtuous private individuals. Its a ubiquitous tool used to order society that reflects the will of those who control it. Unfortunately, for St. Louis, the people in control (which, until recently, included Mr. McKee) are a bunch of snakes. Here's hoping they all get caught and jailed so some decent leaders can emerge.
- 1,642
I agree and I realize when I use the phrase "the government" it opens everything up to immediate criticism. It sounds like a right wing nut. I totally understand. I should be more subtle and thoughtful and refer to it as "bureaucracy" or something.
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole. Whoever had the balls to expose this corruption has fortitude because this could last a decade untangling the corruption.
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole. Whoever had the balls to expose this corruption has fortitude because this could last a decade untangling the corruption.
- 2,419
You've really got to wonder how many politicians are biting their finger nails around St. Louis right now.