Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Dems do. They supported a ban on gerrymandering. Every Congressional republican voted against it. So try again.

No, Dems do not. Claude 2 of the gerrymandering bill you referred to was this:

“Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all other applicable Federal laws.”

In other words, this bill preserved VRA mandated gerrymandering while outlawing all other forms of gerrymandering.

As I stated above, there are obvious race neutral anti-gerrymandering structures that both protect the intent of the VRA and forbid gerrymandering. That this bill explicitly protected some gerrymandering (that historically overwhelmingly benefits Dems) tells you the Dems are playing the same exact game. You are just buying into the framing.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know what it says and it says "IF based on the totality of the circumstances" and in applicable with federal laws. Not "black people get black districts." It's not as rigid as you describe. AND you are ignoring the reasons for the VRA.

Is it your position that the GOP should voluntarily accept the elimination of gerrymandering while preserving a set of gerrymandered districts (in the GOP power geographic power base, no less) that overwhelmingly vote Democrat on a historical basis? Is that what you call fairness? You can’t possibly be a serious person.

You are ignoring the obvious constitutional problems with gerrymandering districts based on race.

That is what YOU want. You want Dems to unilaterally disarm while you rig the F out of state maps 6 mos before elections, even when early voting is happening in some of those states. You people whined and bit--ed about Virginia being "unfair" despite the fact that is temporary and responsive to R's in Texas and other states. And look what they're doing now. All the States that prompted the VRA in the first place are immediately proving why it was needed.

The Voting Rights Act is still there. Section 2 makes no mention of redistricting. It was liberal judges that invented that interpretation to get extra seats for Democrats. When originally done, it didn't matter as much for partisan purposes as Democrats held a lot of these seats.

Section 2 is pretty much why the Southern Strategy happened and the KKK wing of the democratic party became republicans after LBJ signed the Act into law. Its undoing is why you are seeing the former confederate states rushing to eliminate black voting power. And also why you are seeing the racists on the Supreme Court bending over backwards to rush this through in time for the elections, which has already started in some places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Voting Rights Act is still there. Section 2 makes no mention of redistricting. It was liberal judges that invented that interpretation to get extra seats for Democrats. When originally done, it didn't matter as much for partisan purposes as Democrats held a lot of these seats.

https://boltsmag.org/scotus-callais-voting-rights-act-ask-bolts/

And I think this is worse than blessing partisan gerrymandering: It incentivizes partisan gerrymandering in the worst possible way. The more racist you are as a party, the more insulated you are from Voting Rights Act liability under this decision. If you can make all of your partisan cues about race, then you will never be able to disentangle the two, and you will never face VRA liability. If there were a party called the Klan party, right now, it would trigger an awful lot of nonwhite opposition based on the party’s platform. But this opinion says, you have to set the party’s platform entirely aside to figure out if there’s been any damage based on race. So the more you can tie the two together, the more insulated you are. That means the most racist partisan gerrymandering is going to be the most immune from a VRA challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Dems do. They supported a ban on gerrymandering. Every Congressional republican voted against it. So try again.

No, Dems do not. Claude 2 of the gerrymandering bill you referred to was this:

“Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all other applicable Federal laws.”

In other words, this bill preserved VRA mandated gerrymandering while outlawing all other forms of gerrymandering.

As I stated above, there are obvious race neutral anti-gerrymandering structures that both protect the intent of the VRA and forbid gerrymandering. That this bill explicitly protected some gerrymandering (that historically overwhelmingly benefits Dems) tells you the Dems are playing the same exact game. You are just buying into the framing.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know what it says and it says "IF based on the totality of the circumstances" and in applicable with federal laws. Not "black people get black districts." It's not as rigid as you describe. AND you are ignoring the reasons for the VRA.

Is it your position that the GOP should voluntarily accept the elimination of gerrymandering while preserving a set of gerrymandered districts (in the GOP power geographic power base, no less) that overwhelmingly vote Democrat on a historical basis? Is that what you call fairness? You can’t possibly be a serious person.

You are ignoring the obvious constitutional problems with gerrymandering districts based on race.

That is what YOU want. You want Dems to unilaterally disarm while you rig the F out of state maps 6 mos before elections, even when early voting is happening in some of those states. You people whined and bit--ed about Virginia being "unfair" despite the fact that is temporary and responsive to R's in Texas and other states. And look what they're doing now. All the States that prompted the VRA in the first place are immediately proving why it was needed.

The Voting Rights Act is still there. Section 2 makes no mention of redistricting. It was liberal judges that invented that interpretation to get extra seats for Democrats. When originally done, it didn't matter as much for partisan purposes as Democrats held a lot of these seats.

Southern Dems were not liberal at that time. But do go on with your historical rundown.

Further VRA is done. Just b/c the KKK members of SCOTUS can claim plausible deniability otherwise doesn't mean in practice, it's gone.
Proving intent to discriminate is nearly impossible, rendingering VRA claims impossible.
-former discrimination/EEO litigator (defense side and I never lost a case)