The question should not be about the outcome, it should be about the opportunity. It should be irrelevant that a majority black district tends to vote Democratic. The goal is to give them the opportunity to participate in the process in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Striking down Section 2 lets Republicans gerrymander Black voters into political powerlessness. White people should stop being coy about why the far-right majority on the court is doing this.
That just makes them equal, like everyone else. No-one else gets this special treatment; whites don't vote as a bloc. There's no reason extra-melanated-Americans should get special treatment on this basis. This isn't Lebanon and we're not divvying things up by ethnic spoils. That shit is so 19th century.
Be careful what you wish for. If Southern Strategy states give your Republicans 15 extra seats once the VRA is gone, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, and Maryland can easily match that
And as I said, gerrymandering for ANY reason is bad. Perhaps this will force a compromise, or a court challenge to use the criteria SCOTUS paid out, but in a different order, ie using compactness first.
The entire reason for eliminating the Voting Rights Act is so Southern Strategy Neo-Confederate Republicans can keep the Black populations from having any power. Period.
Ah yes, those famous neo-Confederates Winsome Sears (likely the next governor of Virginia) and Clarence Thomas (the 5th longest-tenured SCOTUS justice, and someone who has pressed for precisely this levelling of the VRA for decades).
The loss of privilege often feels like oppression, but in the end it will be better for everyone.
Perhaps Gabe's observation regarding a "more sweeping ruling" indicates that the justices don't feel there is justification to allow partisan gerrymandering.
It seems to me the basic question and problem is should politics be involved in setting congressional districts. It seems to me that if that were the case it would be much easier for a group to control the "levers" of government and cause the country to fall into autocratic government control or worse.
Read Lisa Graves book, “ Without Precedent” and you will gain a greater understanding of Chief Justice Roberts, and how his polite, charming manner belies dangerous motives.
I voted for Obama three times. He represented me in the senate and, of course, ran the country for eight years. Why is it that the law must require in certain areas of the country that black people are not represented by a qualified white politician selected by the voters?
The fundamental problem is that the Court has refused to take a role to limit political gerrymandering. Rucho was a chance to set clear, bright-line boundaries on acceptable congressional districts and the Court refused to do so. They were provided with a number of alternative tests that would have been reasonable for lower-courts to apply. Instead, they put their heads in the sand and said, effectively, "This is too hard for us".
Many readers are questioning the relevancy of gerrymandering for party. Has that been addressed by the courts already and been determined to be relevant? If so, what arguments and precedents have been set?
I realize this piece is only about gerrymandering but we have to look much further Gerrymandering by party is totally unacceptable Also this court has totally gutted voting rights as well as many states
Relevant and accurate reporting of the highest degree, especially with no decision at the end.
For myself, if parties are allowed to pick their choices in redistricting, gerrymandering is only in the eye of the beholder, why can they not do the same with race? In the last election President Trump received about 20% of the black vote, can't say what it was in Louisiana.
Gabe can you discuss on Sunday how the court moved to interpreting a "color blind" constitution? If no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens, how did we get to openly diminishing voting rights with maps on the premise of racism? The premise of the 14th is not blind equal protection, it is the understanding that the constitution and the law is not and has never been blind to our differences and the need for federal intervention when the state over steps.
So are voters and electeds more racially polarized in the geographical south (there will always be distribution from the average, has it shifted over time in the geographic comparison)?
The question should not be about the outcome, it should be about the opportunity. It should be irrelevant that a majority black district tends to vote Democratic. The goal is to give them the opportunity to participate in the process in a non-discriminatory fashion.
And striking down Section 2 would do just that.
Striking down Section 2 lets Republicans gerrymander Black voters into political powerlessness. White people should stop being coy about why the far-right majority on the court is doing this.
That just makes them equal, like everyone else. No-one else gets this special treatment; whites don't vote as a bloc. There's no reason extra-melanated-Americans should get special treatment on this basis. This isn't Lebanon and we're not divvying things up by ethnic spoils. That shit is so 19th century.
Nobody will have their vote or their voice taken away. Democrats "should stop being coy about why" they would oppose this.
Be careful what you wish for. If Southern Strategy states give your Republicans 15 extra seats once the VRA is gone, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, and Maryland can easily match that
https://www.rawstory.com/voting-rights-act-2674210684/
And as I said, gerrymandering for ANY reason is bad. Perhaps this will force a compromise, or a court challenge to use the criteria SCOTUS paid out, but in a different order, ie using compactness first.
The entire reason for eliminating the Voting Rights Act is so Southern Strategy Neo-Confederate Republicans can keep the Black populations from having any power. Period.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Ah yes, those famous neo-Confederates Winsome Sears (likely the next governor of Virginia) and Clarence Thomas (the 5th longest-tenured SCOTUS justice, and someone who has pressed for precisely this levelling of the VRA for decades).
The loss of privilege often feels like oppression, but in the end it will be better for everyone.
Nobody is eliminating the VRA. Striking down this Sec 2 misinterpretation will merely bring it in line with the 14th Amendment.
The SCOTUS interpretation that its permissible to gerrymander for political purposes is (IMHO) wrong, but that's a separate issue.
Thank you
What is the court’s justification which allows gerrymandering to favor one political party over another ??
Perhaps Gabe's observation regarding a "more sweeping ruling" indicates that the justices don't feel there is justification to allow partisan gerrymandering.
I hope you’re right, but I fear that it is wishful thinking.
Maybe the Justices should read Jill Lepore’s We The People: A History of the U. S. Constitution.
It seems to me the basic question and problem is should politics be involved in setting congressional districts. It seems to me that if that were the case it would be much easier for a group to control the "levers" of government and cause the country to fall into autocratic government control or worse.
Read Lisa Graves book, “ Without Precedent” and you will gain a greater understanding of Chief Justice Roberts, and how his polite, charming manner belies dangerous motives.
I voted for Obama three times. He represented me in the senate and, of course, ran the country for eight years. Why is it that the law must require in certain areas of the country that black people are not represented by a qualified white politician selected by the voters?
The fundamental problem is that the Court has refused to take a role to limit political gerrymandering. Rucho was a chance to set clear, bright-line boundaries on acceptable congressional districts and the Court refused to do so. They were provided with a number of alternative tests that would have been reasonable for lower-courts to apply. Instead, they put their heads in the sand and said, effectively, "This is too hard for us".
Many readers are questioning the relevancy of gerrymandering for party. Has that been addressed by the courts already and been determined to be relevant? If so, what arguments and precedents have been set?
I realize this piece is only about gerrymandering but we have to look much further Gerrymandering by party is totally unacceptable Also this court has totally gutted voting rights as well as many states
Relevant and accurate reporting of the highest degree, especially with no decision at the end.
For myself, if parties are allowed to pick their choices in redistricting, gerrymandering is only in the eye of the beholder, why can they not do the same with race? In the last election President Trump received about 20% of the black vote, can't say what it was in Louisiana.
Gabe can you discuss on Sunday how the court moved to interpreting a "color blind" constitution? If no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens, how did we get to openly diminishing voting rights with maps on the premise of racism? The premise of the 14th is not blind equal protection, it is the understanding that the constitution and the law is not and has never been blind to our differences and the need for federal intervention when the state over steps.
So are voters and electeds more racially polarized in the geographical south (there will always be distribution from the average, has it shifted over time in the geographic comparison)?
Yes!!!! It has always been there Trump has just made it more acceptable