Being white means I suppose you do.
There were two districts in question, one was unanimous at 8-0, one was 5-3.
1 Like
To my knowledge the Supreme Court has never issued an opinion striking down political gerrymandering. So, yes, political gerrymandering is absolutely fine and always has been, according to the Supreme Court. They have hinted in the past that there might be political gerrymandering which crosses a line, but so far they have never found that line. Racial gerrymandering is a different matter altogether; the Supremes have struck down several attempts at racial gerryminadering in the past. Alito and Kennedy were followeing precedent - a terrible precedent, but still precedent.
Citizens United Most Go, before this Country can call itself AMERICA Again !!
trumPPâs budget drastically cuts funding for the next Census. And their top dog in office just quit. I suggest that Kris Kobach be put in charge of a committee to look into the fraudulent creation of gerrymandered congressional districts across this country. Thatâs a much larger threat to the integrity of our elections than individual voter fraud.
1 Like
And looking to the feds for help, so donât forget the census. Itâs very early yet, but the guy who would have been in charge is gone and theyâre way behind on staffing up and other prep. And thatâs before we get to how this administrationâs issue/population wish list will âinformâ how itâs conducted.
That said, early signs for Dems on the electoral front are actually kinda promising: apparently weâve suddenly got a glut of qualified, attractive candidates at all levels, and all the new groups focused on everything from recruitment to redistricting to swing-state campaigning to getting people the necessary IDs exceed anything I can remember, and are â for now â all pulling together. So there are forces emerging that are â for now â keeping me away from the ledge.
1 Like
The SC has found that redistricting for partisan advantage is allowed by the Constitution. The states defending their redistricting in court against charges that it was race based generally claim that it was done for partisan reasons and that the dilution of minority voting power is just an unintended consequence.
I fully expect that the redistricting efforts by GOP legislatures after the 2020 census will focus on some non-racial factors (say, something like average square feet of housing units) that correlate with party preference well enough to achieve the desired effect without prompting rejection by the tainted SC.
Koch-funded organizations will quietly analyze the census data and draw up maps for GOP legislatures. The smart legislatures will designate a small committee to create new districts for the full body to vote on. Use of a small committee makes it easier to hide the Koch-funded input and will allow the state to claim that loudmouth legislators who brag about herding all the Ns into one district like cattle had no role in drawing district lines.
The SC is just a speed bump for GOP efforts to maintain white political power against the demographic tide.
1 Like
Clarence remembers some of those stories about hell his momma used to tell down in Pin Point.
1 Like
Of course Roberts is all for restricting the black vote.
Not even a surprise.
1 Like
Nice try, N.C., but no cigar
I just thought of something. Didnât a court strike down Wisconsinâs gerrymandered districts because Dems werenât fairly represented in the state house and the House of Representatives? Had nothing to do with race. Thatâs the reasoning that Michigan dems are going to use when they bring their case.
1 Like
Perhaps he saw it as the position that would best limit the power of the Voting Rights Act.
I got that impression from my laypersonâs read of the syllabus of the decision. It may be that the actual opinions, especially the dissents, would show that I am off the mark.
My speculation is based on my understanding of NCâs position on consideration of race and the majorityâs rejection of that position. There were two districts at issue in the case, and the claims raised by the state were different for each district. For District 12, the state unsuccessfully argued that race wasnât the predominate factor. I think the arguments on District 1 were more important to Thomas.
NC argued that its use of race as a predominate factor in changes to District 1 was allowable, because there is a compelling state interest that the SC has previously accepted as justification. Specifically, NC argued that it made its race-based changes in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The majority found that the districts satisfied only two parts of a three-part test to show that creation of majority-minority districts are required by VRA, and are not instead an effort to concentrate minorities to limit their impact on other districts.
So, one reason Thomas may have voted with the majority was to serve his ongoing interest in restricting the power of the VRA to compel state action. Had the SC majority accepted the looser test that NC wanted to use as a reason for acting as it did, it would have opened the door for using a looser test to compel state action to comply with the VRA.
3 Likes
Quoting from RFC1925 (The Twelve Networking Truths):
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.
While the document was originally intended as a tongue-in-cheek look at the realities of network technology, this Truth in particular also seems to apply to the present maladministration.
1 Like
And a least you knew by owning a dog there was some hint of compassion and empathy in Regan
Dogs raise their lips and run away from Trump
Thatâs fine with us.
Love your banana republic? Right.
Rick Hasenâs take is that the decision is a step forward because it allows race and party to become proxies for each other. You could now conceivably make the argument that partisan gerrymandering that diluted the power of a minority that was clearly aligned with the disadvantaged party would be, by definition, a racial gerrymander, and so against the VRA. It would lead to more challenges, not fewer.
Even Hasen, however, admits that he has no idea whatâs going on with Thomas.
1 Like
I do, actually. Given that itâs clear that gerrymandering and vote suppression of minorities and poor people are the leading contributors to Republican hegemony in this state, Iâm not clear why I should leave when my vote and my occasional activism might help stem some of the damage our legislature is doing to the most vulnerable. I prefer not to wash my hands of people in such situations, nor to demean them.
When the GOPâs anti-democratic tactics go national, will you leave the US, I wonder? Denounce it as a banana republic? Sneer from Vancouver at all the rubes suffering south of the border?
2 Likes
âAll the people in the other minoritiesâ â to what âallâ are you referring? And I donât understand why minority voters who supported #45 would prefer continued rule by Caucasians and Anglos. It doesnât compute.
There is just too much obvious voter suppression measures being pushed by the GOP with Russian collusion in our elections already a problem. Regular politicians might not care but the Supreme Court canât afford to lose anymore credibility after Bush vs. Gore decision already being evaluated closely by historians.