Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats

[Anonymous]

SCOTUS reinstated Texas gerrymander 15 weeks before primary because they claimed it was too close to election to block it but now allowing Alabama to gerrymander one week before primary after trial court found map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters; and allowing Louisiana to gerrymander after votes have been cast.

It is a coup in plain sight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mississippi wants to redistrict, now that the Supreme Court has declared that racist districts are no longer legal. But it was tied up in an appeal relating to its earlier map. No more! A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court order and sent it back.

Basic math:

Mississippi is 36-37% black. If all 4 districts go to white Republicans, they are being screwed out of their vote and representation.
or,
Trump won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. If all 4 districts go to Republicans, 40% of Mississippi is getting screwed out of its representation.

Repeat for every other red states trying to eliminate all Democrat districts by redistricting.

Republicans are screwing over tens of millions of Americans. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mississippi wants to redistrict, now that the Supreme Court has declared that racist districts are no longer legal. But it was tied up in an appeal relating to its earlier map. No more! A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court order and sent it back.

Basic math:

Mississippi is 36-37% black. If all 4 districts go to white Republicans, they are being screwed out of their vote and representation.
or,
Trump won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. If all 4 districts go to Republicans, 40% of Mississippi is getting screwed out of its representation.

Repeat for every other red states trying to eliminate all Democrat districts by redistricting.

Republicans are screwing over tens of millions of Americans. Period.

Why are you treating black people as a monolith? You can say it is hurting democrats unfairly if you want, just like in the Northeast where Republicans make up a big percentage but get zero representation. But arguing based on race is wrong and treats race as monolithic, which is exactly the reason for the SCOTUS decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mississippi wants to redistrict, now that the Supreme Court has declared that racist districts are no longer legal. But it was tied up in an appeal relating to its earlier map. No more! A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court order and sent it back.

Basic math:

Mississippi is 36-37% black. If all 4 districts go to white Republicans, they are being screwed out of their vote and representation.
or,
Trump won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. If all 4 districts go to Republicans, 40% of Mississippi is getting screwed out of its representation.

Repeat for every other red states trying to eliminate all Democrat districts by redistricting.

Republicans are screwing over tens of millions of Americans. Period.

Why are you treating black people as a monolith? You can say it is hurting democrats unfairly if you want, just like in the Northeast where Republicans make up a big percentage but get zero representation. But arguing based on race is wrong and treats race as monolithic, which is exactly the reason for the SCOTUS decision.

Jesus. Quit coming on here and spewing about "race based" anything if you cannot recognize what the VRA was meant to deal with: race based suppression and discrimination in voting. Don't come in here sanctimoniously spewing about race in one timeframe but not another.

[Anonymous]

Attention Virginia residents: Virginia Supreme Court Justice D. Arthur Kelsey is up for re-election this January. Justice Kelsey was among the four justices who ruled against the redistricting measures intended to address Republican gerrymandering — effectively overturning the will of Virginia voters. Make your voice heard at the polls and vote accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mississippi wants to redistrict, now that the Supreme Court has declared that racist districts are no longer legal. But it was tied up in an appeal relating to its earlier map. No more! A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court order and sent it back.

Basic math:

Mississippi is 36-37% black. If all 4 districts go to white Republicans, they are being screwed out of their vote and representation.
or,
Trump won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. If all 4 districts go to Republicans, 40% of Mississippi is getting screwed out of its representation.

Repeat for every other red states trying to eliminate all Democrat districts by redistricting.

Republicans are screwing over tens of millions of Americans. Period.

Oh, so do Republicans have a right to representation in New England? What about the nearly 6 million Republicans in California who only get a small handful of seats? No, you only want black people to have this special right? Well, that's illegal.

If Democrats want to end gerrymandering, they can start in their own back yards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mississippi wants to redistrict, now that the Supreme Court has declared that racist districts are no longer legal. But it was tied up in an appeal relating to its earlier map. No more! A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court order and sent it back.

Basic math:

Mississippi is 36-37% black. If all 4 districts go to white Republicans, they are being screwed out of their vote and representation.
or,
Trump won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. If all 4 districts go to Republicans, 40% of Mississippi is getting screwed out of its representation.

Repeat for every other red states trying to eliminate all Democrat districts by redistricting.

Republicans are screwing over tens of millions of Americans. Period.

Oh, so do Republicans have a right to representation in New England? What about the nearly 6 million Republicans in California who only get a small handful of seats? No, you only want black people to have this special right? Well, that's illegal.

If Democrats want to end gerrymandering, they can start in their own back yards.

No, hopefully the rest of the blue states put on the big boy pants and really get this war started. Welfare Queen red states are a pox on the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Attention Virginia residents: Virginia Supreme Court Justice D. Arthur Kelsey is up for re-election this January. Justice Kelsey was among the four justices who ruled against the redistricting measures intended to address Republican gerrymandering — effectively overturning the will of Virginia voters. Make your voice heard at the polls and vote accordingly.

You should read up a little more. No Virginia voters will be allowed to vote against Kelsey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS reinstated Texas gerrymander 15 weeks before primary because they claimed it was too close to election to block it but now allowing Alabama to gerrymander one week before primary after trial court found map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters; and allowing Louisiana to gerrymander after votes have been cast.

It is a coup in plain sight.

The Supreme Court said the judiciary should not mandate states change things close to an election. They never said staters may not change things themselves close to an election. Optional vs mandatory.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS reinstated Texas gerrymander 15 weeks before primary because they claimed it was too close to election to block it but now allowing Alabama to gerrymander one week before primary after trial court found map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters; and allowing Louisiana to gerrymander after votes have been cast.

It is a coup in plain sight.

The Supreme Court said the judiciary should not mandate states change things close to an election. They never said staters may not change things themselves close to an election. Optional vs mandatory.

This rule (Purcell) was supposedly because it would confuse voters to change the rules too close to an election. If it’s fine for republican states to voluntarily change the rules after voting has already started in response to a court decision, then that demonstrates the rule was always BS to begin with and was nothing more than an excuse to hurt Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Big picture good thing, but in the short term designed to lock in place all the mid-decade redistricting gains the GOP already has and forestall efforts in NY/NJ/CO/CA/MN/IL/MD/VA for 2028.

[Anonymous]

Georgia on deck for 2028