This article was originally published at ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1470803
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1470803
1 Like
The overall Black population in SC is 26%. The Dems contend that 26% of the representatives, 2 out of 7, should be Black. The GOP contends that every Congressional District should be 26% Black. The Supreme Court will sidestep the racial/political issue and conclude that the distinction is irrelevant because CJ Roberts previously decreed that things have changed since 1964 and we now live in a post-racial society. Life on the bench is much easier when you ignore the inconvenient truth that GOP politics are racist at their core.
ETA the requisite reference to a cat: @katscherger
19 Likes
This article isn’t detailed enough to let us decide about Clyburn’s participation, but we shouldn’t forget that every politiican, including Clyburn, wants to select his or her own voters. One of the problems when you have a famous African American Democrat, like Clyburn, is Republicans will cut a deal with him and claim they have met their goals. After all the famous civiil rights icon has a safe district. Of course at the same time two or three other possible districts are lost. In short this is not a new problem in redistricting.
11 Likes
Focusing on Clyburn’s early involvement sounds very much like “some of my best friends are black, so I can’t be racist.” The question for me is what happened to the boundaries between the 6th district and all of the other districts around it, and the boundaries of all the other districts. One border where there may not have been a racial gerrymander does not mean that all the other borders are automatically OK.
16 Likes
The answer to this question poised in the article is YOU CAN"T because there is no difference.
Rick Hasen, a legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, said deciding the line between partisan and racial gerrymandering is a “recurring issue” for the court as both political parties bring cases alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause.
“When the state says it’s about politics, and the plaintiffs argue that it’s about race, how are you supposed to disentangle those two things?” he said.
I mean look at the current House Majority leader and perhaps next Speaker, David Dukes without the baggage. The fact is the Republican Party only has any power because of the link between race and how people vote.
The point is when you are running on a platform that disproportionately affect different people based on their race, which both Parties are doing, race becomes a factor in partisanship. It is intellectual dishonesty to say there is a difference.
11 Likes
Thank goodness racism is over, Roberts said so.
11 Likes
This.
A previous article made clear that Cyburn biasing his own district toward his re-election seeded this racial/partisan gerrymander. Good deal for the GOP and I’m disappointed (but I guess not really surprised) that a powerful dem would do this. Again, tho, not surprising. I tend to think the map will stand because of this. It shouldn’t, but I expect it will. And who knows, SC may well have successfully gotten away with a racial gerrymander even w/o Clyburn
2 Likes
That Jim Clyburn initiated the illegal racial gerrymander in order to suit his personal electoral interests does not transform it into a legal racial gerrymander.
11 Likes
It’s just sick that “Our self-serving gerrymander isn’t racist, just nakedly partisan!” is somehow a valid defense, according to the nation’s highest court. Never mind that the two criteria are massively congruent in racially polarized Southern states.
11 Likes
In their legal filings, Republican leaders contend they did not take race into account when they redrew the districts.
In the immortal words of John Mitchell, that is a damnable, palpable lie.
5 Likes
Oh. So Clyburn’s suggestions were about race not about his partisan intetests?
The obvious fact that it was both does not negate that it’s still an illegal racial gerrymander. Clyburn drew a district map for himself that deliberately added black voters because of their race while also subtracting white voters because of their race. That’s illegal.
12 Likes
I was in Charleston last week. We took a tour and learned much about the city and it’s history. The Guide, who I will not name, was a nice guy but he was still fighting the Civil War, which he called the War of Northern Aggression. That is what democrats are up against.
8 Likes
All States should use maps drawn by Independent panels.
7 Likes
Your comments should remind us all how Republicans were able to take control of many Southern Legislatures and the US Congress itself.
What happened was in the 1980s several Blacks for the first time were elected to public office in state legislatures. The Black office holders while Democrats, formed an alliance with Republicans when it came to redistricting that resulted in more Black majority districts but fewer total Democratic districts and more Republican districts.
The result of this deal between Black Democrats and Republicans resulting in more Black but fewer total Democratic districts and more Republican districts resulted in Republicans becoming the majority in the state legislatures. Once in the majority, Republicans then turned against the Black office holders and reduced the number of Black districts in favor of still more Republican districts.
There are several important lessons here including to Democrats don’t ignore the aspirations of your own voters and what is best for ME may not be best.
11 Likes
As a guide is dealing with people from all over the world, it would be nice if he had used a neutral term. War of Northern Aggression is brings out my argumentative side.
3 Likes
We’re in the middle of a debate about that in Michigan–the Trifecta was achieved and AA representation went down in the House/Senate…
3 Likes
Standing in Charleston, calling it “ The War of Northern Aggression” is precious. On April 12, 1861 the South Carolina Militia opened fire on Ft Sumter. The opening activity of the CIVIL WAR.
12 Likes
Incumbents prefer districts that favor themselves, regardless of any other considerations. Before non-partisan redistricting in CA, the primary goal of the legislature in redistricting was preservation of incumbency. Democrats and Republicans both supported that over even potential gains for their own political party.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, the guy who was running for a seat in our district was tripped up by a story about a former girlfriend, and most likely, the republicans had a hand in that. Nothing was actually proven but he decided to leave the race, only to reenter when many of us had already voted early. It might have been a close one anyway - the other area he would represent is very red. Of course, the republican woman won. I don’t know if he’ll try again.
2 Likes