Supreme Court Guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

[pxmcc]

so, in other news, the Supreme Court continued its assault on democracy.

how Sect 2 of the VRA used to work in practice: suppose you have a state that has a 20% black population and 5 House seats in Congress. well if there are 5 seats and 20% of the population is black, then one seat should be given to a District with a large black population so blacks can have at least one seat at the table, right? i mean, democracy is about fairness, give and take, with every citizen having some level of representation in our federal govenment, everyone having at least some voice, wouldn't you agree? the American Revolution was about no taxation without representation, and the colonists were right to rebel because they had no reps in Parliament while laws detrimental to the colonists were being passed.

suppose that a state like Alabama decides that only non-black people should be in Congress, and gerrymanders that black district in such a way that a black representative would have a very poor chance of being elected because, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the white majority population is racist.

Section 2, per Supreme Court rulings since the 60's, would allow a black plaintiff to argue that the effect of the gerrymander is to suppress black representation, and after it got back to the High Court, they'd find that the gerrymander is discriminatory against blacks, and throw out the new maps.

well the Roberts Court in Louisiana v. Callais said that wasn't good enough. now a plaintiff needs to show not only a discriminatory effect but also a discriminatory intent, like for example an email in which the brain behind the gerrymander says, "Wow, isn't it great that we just screwed black people? In our racist state, no chance they'll get a rep with the new maps."

well people can read the Supreme Court case and realize that you don't say the quiet part out loud, not even by email. you stfu because loose lips sink ships.

so a black plaintiff sues. no smoking gun exists, because Republicans aren't idiots. the black plaintiff says, "Res ipsa. The thing speaks for itself. Of course the Republican statehouse intended that blacks be discriminated against and effectively disenfranchised."

and the Defendant says, "Not a chance. This is strictly a partisan gerrymander (which the Supreme Court allows, also anti-democratic). With the new maps, we get 5 safe Republican seats instead of 4."

and the Supreme Court, intending to screw minorities, says yup, nothing to see here. this is a garden-variety partisan gerrymander. the new maps are approved!

and John Roberts whines that Americans think that the Supreme Court is political instead of this "above the fray", "just calling balls and strikes", regal and august institution..

give.me.a.fucking.break.

and now the whole south is bringing back Jim Crow and disenfranching blacks and other minorities through racial gerrymandering. lovely. and whiny Alito is literally folhfao..

so what are ya'lls' thoughts on this new decision basically eviscerating Section 2 of the VRA? good for democracy? any different from what the Brits did to us circa 1776?

[txdot-guy]

It’s not direct racism, racism is not the point of a republican gerrymander, but it’s effective racism nonetheless.

The number of black representatives is going to plummet in congress across the south. That’s a fact that the supreme court chooses not to see.

Tennessee’s new map has turned the entire state red, no blue districts at all after the gerrymander.

If the GOP plan is executed in full, Democratic voters in Tennessee could be left without a representative in Washington, D.C.

[Salty Again]

... Not understandin' WHY that you expect a BIG drop in
black representatives across the south... Several of the
southern states are "red" states - and thus black people
could still be voted-on. ... Black Republicans.

... Just like happening in Tennessee's blue district.
A black woman might still WIN the election there.
Though she's a Republican ...

#### Salty

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Not understandin' WHY that you expect a BIG drop in
black representatives across the south... Several of the
southern states are "red" states - and thus black people
could still be voted-on. ... Black Republicans.

... Just like happening in Tennessee's blue district.
A black woman might still WIN the election there.
Though she's a Republican ...

#### Salty

well, what i'm advocating is representation proportional to the minorities' population. for the example i used in the original post, give blacks their 1 out of 5 majority district; if they choose a black Republican over a black Democrat, that's their call. they still have the choice of who they want to represent them in Congress. it's the representation that counts, not who they choose in a free and fair election.

a majority black district could even vote in a white person-maybe like a white version of Obama-and i'd have zero issues with that, nor would it be a section 2 violation. that's the power of the franchised voter to elect whomever they want to represent them in the federal government, specifically the U.S. House.

it's when the minority population is denied that opportunity that creates a Section 2 violation. but per the latest Supreme Court decision, that denial is now just dandy so long as the denier doesn't proclaim his racist motive, indicating a racist intent behind the gerrymander.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

For anyone truly interested in a solution to gerrymandering. A good opinion piece on a mathematical geometry led approach to creating population based districts using a measure that they have named the “Relative Proximity Index.”

Here is the article in archive form. https://archive.ph/P1FLJ

Picture every voter as a dot on the state map. First, we pin down the geometric minimum — the most compact way to bundle those dots inside the state’s jagged borders into its exact number of congressional districts, each with equal population, whether that means wrapping around Florida’s panhandle or hugging Georgia’s slanted shoulder. Then we compare the map the legislature actually draws to that floor. The ratio is the Relative Proximity Index. An R.P.I. of 1 means you’ve hit the geometric ideal; an R.P.I. of 3 means voters within a district would live — on average — three times farther apart than necessary.

The article is fairly comprehensive and fairly short. I would recommend everyone read it.

They have a thread in the Pittsburgh Sandbox about gerrymandering from almost a year ago.

This was my solution to the gerrymandering problem. Take politics and race out of the equation and stick to a mathematical model. It’s the only fair thing to do.

Unfortunately politicians will never go for it. They’d rather cheat the system instead.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

well, what i'm advocating is representation proportional to the minorities' population. for the example i used in the original post, give blacks their 1 out of 5 majority district; if they choose a black Republican over a black Democrat, that's their call. they still have the choice of who they want to represent them in Congress. it's the representation that counts, not who they choose in a free and fair election.

a majority black district could even vote in a white person-maybe like a white version of Obama-and i'd have zero issues with that, nor would it be a section 2 violation. that's the power of the franchised voter to elect whomever they want to represent them in the federal government, specifically the U.S. House.

it's when the minority population is denied that opportunity that creates a Section 2 violation. but per the latest Supreme Court decision, that denial is now just dandy so long as the denier doesn't proclaim his racist motive, indicating a racist intent behind the gerrymander.

... That mostly sees rather reasonable, mate.
And I appreciate yer responce... However:

... So, America should have separate black districts?
And how 'bout American Indian natives? ... Hispanics??
Muslims?? ... Mormons?? ... Agnostics?? ... Nudists??
Each with separate districts also? ...

I'd surely like to see more Australian voting districts,
but reckon we can onley do so much...

Though the Supreme Court seemed to decide to nip this
all before it starts - and said "Nope"...

... I'm just musing as-to the reason for their decision.

##### Salty

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... That mostly sees rather reasonable, mate.
And I appreciate yer responce... However:

... So, America should have separate black districts?
And how 'bout American Indian natives? ... Hispanics??
Muslims?? ... Mormons?? ... Agnostics?? ... Nudists??
Each with separate districts also? ...

I'd surely like to see more Australian voting districts,
but reckon we can onley do so much...

Though the Supreme Court seemed to decide to nip this
all before it starts - and said "Nope"...

... I'm just musing as-to the reason for their decision.

##### Salty

here's the text of the relevant part of Sect. 2:

"42 U.S.C. § 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.

a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of theright of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b"

the focus of Section 2 of the VRA is on race or color; it was passed under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. so if you are a member of a specific race, then the protections kick in. "Mormonism" and "Muslim" aren't races or colors, and neither is "Australian" or "Irish". the latter two groups are both of the "white race or color"; blacks are a different race or color than whites, which is why they are a protected class. Hispanics can also argue that they are protected because their skin color is brown. (the situation with Native Americans is more complicated because much of the law treats them as a "nation within a nation", leading to a different set of rules. an example of that is Native American-owned casinos in states where gambling isn't legal.)

[corona]

Oh, but this is fair?

Fuck outta here with your histrionics.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by corona

Oh, but this is fair?...

Just the fact that you used that source sez it all....

He ain't givin' you the full story about racial and political distributions in those states. He's just feeding you MAGA lies...and he has a documented history of lying...

"Johnson was previously employed with BuzzFeed but was fired in 2014 due to several instances of plagiarism...."

(source Wikipedia)

.

[corona]

Originally Posted by rooster

Just the fact that you used that source sez it all....

.

Point out what is incorrect or inaccurate about the graphic. If it's factual, the source doesn't matter.

But, deflect, deflect deflect. You just can't help it.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by corona

Point out what is incorrect or inaccurate about the graphic. If it's factual, the source doesn't matter.

But, deflect, deflect deflect. You just can't help it.

Whew. Get defensive much....

The source absolutely DOES matter...cuz they are the ones that decide how much context and relevant fact they include in their "graphic"...and how much they don't.

As far as me pointing out what is incorrect, that isn't the point either. Your source is a lying, plagiarizing, spinning piece of SHIT who has zero credibility. Use your lantern-like lingo all you want in rebuttal. I ain't playing in this sandbox fulla cat shit.

.

[pxmcc]

the problem is that your Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is ok. another terrible, antidemocratic decision, imo..

Originally Posted by corona

Oh, but this is fair?

Fuck outta here with your histrionics.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by corona

Oh, but this is fair?

Fuck outta here with your histrionics.

Originally Posted by corona

Point out what is incorrect or inaccurate about the graphic. If it's factual, the source doesn't matter.

But, deflect, deflect deflect. You just can't help it.

So? That's a handful of states. Let's look at the overall picture nationwide. Now get deflecting! We're sure you can't help it.

[txdot-guy]

Gerrymandering is and always has been undemocratic. I hope we can all agree on that point. If our country didn’t have a pattern of racial discrimination in voting which at one time was even worse we wouldn’t have needed the Voting Rights Act to begin with.

The Supreme court may be correct that discrimination against race has lessened to the point that it’s no longer necessary but their solution to scrap the current system without a replacement is certainly not the way to go about it. Neither is calling for redistricting in a non census year just to get a political advantage.

Political gerrymandering has the effect of being discriminatory against minorities period. That’s because political parties are biased just like the general public is.

I’ll repeat. A federal law implementing a non biased mathematical system that only allows congressional redistricting after the decennial census is the most accurate and fair way to go.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by corona

Oh, but this is fair?

^^^ Whoa, that's quite an eye-opener, isn't it?

Due to Dem gerry-mandering, the Republicans don't hold a single fucking seat in the US House of Representatives for ALL OF NEW ENGLAND??

Didn't know that.

Doesn't seem fair, does it?

But hey, that's just me, wtf do I know anyway?