Gerrymandering (3 Viewers)

[zztop]

I think it is time to have a dedicated topic about it.

 

[zztop]

republican states salivating at the chance to further disenfranchise non-white voters

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

This just underscores the need for national legislation in gerrymandering.

The corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court know that it's practically impossible to prove intent, so that's why they have shifted the standard from racially discriminatory outcome to racially discriminatory intent.

Racially discriminatory outcome is easy to prove by just looking at the outcome. Racially discriminatory intent is impossible to prove unless someone confesses to it and the racists Republicans will never admit to it in a any way that can be proven in court.

 

[MT15]

NY state has decided to redistrict to counteract the GOP’s power grab.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is potentially shaping up to be a historic blowout for Democrats. If Trump remains this unpopular, the gerrymandering is going to backfire spectacularly for Republicans... I can see the Democrats easily with 250 Congressional Reps after the mid-terms.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

NY state has decided to redistrict to counteract the GOP’s power grab.

Flavor Flav said it best...

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

This is potentially shaping up to be a historic blowout for Democrats. If Trump remains this unpopular, the gerrymandering is going to backfire spectacularly for Republicans... I can see the Democrats easily with 250 Congressional Reps after the mid-terms.

Before the Republicans started this gerrymander war, there where more districts heavily gerrymandered by Republicans for Republicans in Republican controlled states than the opposite in Democratic controlled states, so Democrats will come out ahead if Democrats keep matching Republicans state for state.

 

[FullMonte]

(R) started this shirt with trump's pressure. You think (D) would sit back and do nothing to counter it? Let's be clear, this was all a scheme by (R) to hold power. You are saying 'both sides' without saying those exact words.

Wow...its like you don't even read what I said.

I said nothing about countering anything. I said nothing about anything that's going on right now.

I proposed a solution to all gerrymandering, and said that neither side is currently willing to make the move towards that.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Wow...its like you don't even read what I said.

I said nothing about countering anything. I said nothing about anything that's going on right now.

I proposed a solution to all gerrymandering, and said that neither side is currently willing to make the move towards that.

Congressional Democrats have proposed a nation-wide ban on gerrymandering.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I've mentioned before, I think an even simpler solution would be to just create more congressional districs... we're at 1 representative per 700,000 citizens. Move it to 1 per 100,000 citizens (originally we were at 1 per 30,000).

That would make it almost impossible to gerrymander effectively.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I said nothing about anything that's going on right now.

When you say neither side is CURRENTLY willing to make the move towards fixing gerrymandering, you are in fact talking about what's going on right now and ignoring what was going on as recently as a yesterday and still happening today.

By the way, the solution is not as simple as plugging data into a computer. They use computers in states with neutral redistricting and they still get odd shapes and disproportional districts. It's not as geometrically or proportionally simple as you think it is, because people don't live based on geometry.

I proposed a solution to all gerrymandering, and said that neither side is currently willing to make the move towards that.

That's not actually what you said. You said the following in your first post.

I think we are at the point now where we could fix this....but neither side is willing to do it.

If you meant neither side was willing to use computers for neutrality, then you're factually wrong, because many states have been doing just that. However, I read that as you saying neither side is willing to fix gerrymandering. My perception of what you were saying was reinforced when you said the following in your second post.

I said that we are at a point in this gerrymandering war where neither side is willing to take the steps necessary to end it and create fair maps across the country.

To me, that's you again saying that both sides equally want to keep gerrymandering and not end it. I don't see that as you saying, "both sides are not willing to follow my computer solution."

Several Democratic controlled states had and have ended partisan gerrymandering and some Republican controlled states as well. That's more than willing that's doing. Some of those states still aren't gerrymandering, so your statement that neither side is willing to fix gerrymandering is factually false.

You're also oversimplifying and leaving out a lot of details to make it look like the Democrats in general are as unwilling to fix gerrymandering right now as the Republicans are and that's factually false as well.

It's like you're saying, "neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians are willing to move toward peace right now," while the Russians are waging war against Ukraine within Ukraine. The Ukrainians are definitely willing to move toward peace, but they can't do that while Russia is still waging war within Ukraine.

The Democrats in Congress voted to fix gerrymandering except for Joe Manchin. The Republicans unanimously voted against it. Democrats are willing to fix gerrymandering, but they can't fix it while the Republicans are using gerrymandering as a weapon in their war against our election and our democracy.

Both sides are not equally the same when it comes to a willingness to end gerrymandering. That's a historical fact. It's not an opinion.

 

[zztop]

just to add: everything written above was how I also interpreted that post.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

The court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

The decision weakens a landmark voting rights law’s protections against discrimination in redistricting. It’s unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2, the main way to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.…….

Live updates: Supreme Court to hear arguments on ending legal protections for Haitian and Syrian migrants

The Supreme Court will weigh arguments at 10 a.m. ET over the Trump administration’s push to end legal protections for Haitians and Syrians as migrants fleeing war and natural disaster.

apnews.com

Because of course they did...

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is potentially shaping up to be a historic blowout for Democrats. If Trump remains this unpopular, the gerrymandering is going to backfire spectacularly for Republicans... I can see the Democrats easily with 250 Congressional Reps after the mid-terms.

Please don't jinx us...

 

[MT15]

This is potentially shaping up to be a historic blowout for Democrats. If Trump remains this unpopular, the gerrymandering is going to backfire spectacularly for Republicans... I can see the Democrats easily with 250 Congressional Reps after the mid-terms.

I really really hope that is true. I am hoping these hastily redrawn districts have been cut too close and they end up losing a fair number of them. That would be poetic justice.

 

[MT15]

This is totally correct.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The lawmakers who represent Alabama’s two Black congressional districts, who are now at risk of losing their seats after the supreme court effectively decimated the Voting Rights Act, said the decision sends the US “backwards”.

The 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts across the south, and representatives Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures stand in the crosshairs.

“People in my home town fought, braved, died, marched for the right of all Americans to vote,” Sewell, who represents Alabama’s seventh congressional district, said shortly before Wednesday’s decision. “And I know I wouldn’t be here, were it not for the Voting Rights Act. I mean, actually, all Black elected officials. It’s pretty frightening to think that on our collective watch, we’re going backwards and not forwards.”

Figures, who represents Alabama’s newly drawn second congressional district, said the ruling threatens far more than the seats currently held by Black members of Congress. “The impact will be great,” he said in an interview before the decision, anticipating that the court would weaken the landmark voting law. “At the end of the day, the Voting Rights Act is about fairness. It’s about having the opportunity to elect members of Congress of your choice, and not have the district lines drawn in a way that inhibits the ability of a significant racial group to have an impact in the outcome of an election.”…….

Black lawmakers decry supreme court voting decision: ‘We’re going backwards’

Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures are at risk of losing their seats in Alabama’s Black congressional districts after ruling

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

If people are already voting how can he do this?

 

[Optimus Prime]

The US supreme court has ruled that Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map, in a landmark decision that effectively guts a major section of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting.

The court’s 6-3 decision is a major upheaval in US civil rights law and gives lawmakers permission to draw districting plans that weaken the influence of Black and other minority voters. Some states may even rush ahead to try to redraw districts before this year’s midterm elections.

The White House called the decision “a complete and total victory”.


“The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. Asked by reporters on Wednesday whether states should redraw their congressional maps in response to the ruling, Donald Trumpsaid: “I would.”

Opposite reactions have poured in from lawmakers and civil rights groups, condemning the supreme court’s decision, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which called the ruling “a major setback for our nation”.

Barack Obama warned that the decision frees “state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias’”.…….

Trump news at a glance: White House celebrates as civil rights groups condemn supreme court’s Voting Rights Act ruling

Court’s 6-3 decision is a major upheaval in US civil rights law and gives lawmakers permission to draw districting plans that weaken the influence of Black and other minority voters– key US politics stories from Wednesday 29 April at a glance

www.theguardian.com