Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 25,495
- 11,947
OK thanks for the heads up. I was about to defend you. I didn't realize brosayer was accurately describing your position.
- 1
Gerrymandering Supreme Court Case
- Thread starter Lendarios
- Start date
OK thanks for the heads up. I was about to defend you. I didn't realize brosayer was accurately describing your position.
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 25,495
- 11,947
Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
I think he's talking about this. Section 2 is the one they usually use to make the claim that a voting law is illegal because it's unfair to minorities. Section 4 if you're in one of the bad states (which wisconsin isn't) Like voter ID laws. I can see gerrymandered districts being included.
- 18,801
- 67,743
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
Is there some sort of disconnect with the sarcasm meter here?
You pack your opponents together into as few districts as you can so that they can only win those districts. You give up a few seats to ensure victory in the rest. Who doesn't understand this?
- 17,781
- 25,896
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,094
- 30,147
There are states where gerrymandering is a real issue. There are even a couple instances where it is unfair to Dems. Wisconsin is so far from either of those that it is laughable that they would chose this as a place to fight over it. Milwaukee, Madison, and Superior are the three areas that are blue and that's how its always been. The libertarian streak (and some really shitty GOP offerings) are the reason Wisconsin sort of appeared to be blue for a while. But remember this is a state that elected an actual certifiably retarded guy Governor and then re-affirmed it by letting him win the recall race. The Dem party is horribly inept in Wisconsin and has been that way for a while. Sauglin, Kohl, and MAYBE Feingold are the only Dems worth a shit to come out of that state in the past four decades. Of those, Feingold got buttfucked by his own party for taking on the banks (and trusting McCain), Sauglin never had any interests beyond Madison, and Kohl retired because (as liberal as he is) he could not stand to tow the globalist line, either. The Kohl thing is particularly egregious because he is rich, jewish, and (rumored) gay, which would in theory make him a dem superstar. But he (along with Feingold) has been consistently anti-globalist, which put him on the outs with the Clinton run DNC for most of his tenure. Kohls replacement is the carpet munching ID politics specialist Tammy Baldwin......
So the short version is, Wisconsin is about as ungerrymandered as can be and the real story is that the Dem offerings in the state are simply terrible/out of touch with the constituents. That's why shitheads like Paul Ryan end up getting elected there and Scott "Downs Syndrome" Walker gets to be governor unopposed, despite openly sucking Koch dick and screwing over the police and fire worker unions. Wisconsin Dems cannot stop tripping over their own dicks and the national platform is reviled outside of three urban areas. No amount of Gerrymandering in the Dem favor is going to get the krauts and Pollacks that carpet the bulk of the state to vote blue, especially when their focus is not on economics but on SJW bullshit.
So the short version is, Wisconsin is about as ungerrymandered as can be and the real story is that the Dem offerings in the state are simply terrible/out of touch with the constituents. That's why shitheads like Paul Ryan end up getting elected there and Scott "Downs Syndrome" Walker gets to be governor unopposed, despite openly sucking Koch dick and screwing over the police and fire worker unions. Wisconsin Dems cannot stop tripping over their own dicks and the national platform is reviled outside of three urban areas. No amount of Gerrymandering in the Dem favor is going to get the krauts and Pollacks that carpet the bulk of the state to vote blue, especially when their focus is not on economics but on SJW bullshit.
- 1
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 24,536
- 31,804
Posted this one before. This was from 20ish years ago. The state got sued over and over by the NAACP saying blacks didn't have a majority district. Well blacks don't have a majority (at least then) so they carved out this one across the entire state. Fight went on forever and ever.That was before I-49 opened up and the drive from the bottom to the top of the district was 6 hours away. People of a common interest, the only thing in common they had were they were black and never moved from the river system in the cotton flood plain. It was thrown out, still not sure why a minority which is well the minority needs the majority in a district. By definition they aren't the majority.
- 2
- 1
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 40,855
- 102,497
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 74,914
- 146,996
Araysar you actually didn't know about the requirements placed by federal law in district drawing?
Here's how it works. Below you have an abstract map. Its a circle. Blue depicts a city in the center which is Democrats, red represents rural and suburban areas outside of a city.
If you were a Republican, this is how you would split up that map into districts and get yourself an 8-0 supermajority.
If you were a Democrat, this is how you would do "minority based redistricting" to gain 1 seat
- 1
Breakdown
Gunnar Durden
- 5,802
- 8,015
Except the "Racial" seats inquestions were all pushed for in order to give Minorities a seat.
The PACKING you go back to is the modern Partisan changes. There might be some discussions there. But there are dozens of Racially gerrymandered idstricts that Dems are trying to pretend dont exist by calling them Majority Minority districts. And they were made that way for a reason. As Araysar drew up earlier.
Breakdown
Gunnar Durden
- 5,802
- 8,015
Apparently we have to lay this out for everyone.
Have you faggots heard of Affirmitive Racial Gerrymandering? Its what the faggots pushed in the past to try to provide minorities a chance to elect their own representation. People like Bernie sanders decided EQUALITY wasnt important, but doing whatever it took to get minorities the ability to vote in their own people was important. And it cost them seats by voluntarily stacking districts.
You faggots didnt care about it until you realized you played yourself and have lost the house.
Affirmative[edit]
Shaw v. Reno was a United States Supreme Court case involving a claim that North Carolina's 12th congressional district(pictured) was affirmatively racially gerrymandered.
While the Equal Protection Clause, along with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibit jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor racial groups. The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993),[22] holding that plaintiffs "may state a claim by alleging that [redistricting] legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification". The Supreme Court reasoned that these claims were cognizable because relying on race in redistricting "reinforces racial stereotypes and threatens to undermine our system of representative democracy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole".[22]:649–650[23]:620 Later opinions characterized the type of unconstitutional harm created by racial gerrymandering as an "expressive harm",[11]:862 which law professors Richard Pildes and Richard Neimi have described as a harm "that results from the idea or attitudes expressed through a governmental action."[24]
Subsequent cases further defined the counters of racial gerrymandering claims and how those claims relate to the Voting Rights Act. In United States v. Hays(1996),[25] the Supreme Court held that only those persons who reside in a challenged district may bring a racial gerrymandering claim.[23]:623[25]:743–744 In Miller v. Johnson (1995),[26] the Supreme Court held that a redistricting plan must be subjected to strict scrutiny if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. The court defined "predominance" as meaning that the jurisdiction gave more priority to racial considerations than to traditional redistricting principles such as "compactness, contiguity, [and] respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests."[23]:621[26]:916 In determining whether racial considerations predominated over traditional redistricting principles, courts may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence of the jurisdiction's intent in drawing the district lines, and irregularly-shaped districts constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the jurisdiction relied predominately on race.[11]:869 If a court concludes that racial considerations predominated, then a redistricting plan is considered a "racially gerrymandered" plan and must be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. In Bush v. Vera (1996),[27]:983 the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion assumed that compliance with Section 2 or Section 5 of the Act constituted compelling interests, and lower courts have treated these two interests as the only compelling interests that may justify the creation of racially gerrymandered districts.[11]:877
In Hunt v. Cromartie (1999), the Supreme Court approved a racially focused gerrymandering of a congressional district on the grounds that the definition was not pure racial gerrymandering but instead partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. With the increasing racial polarization of parties in the South in the U.S. as conservative whites move from the Democratic to the Republican Party, gerrymandering may become partisan and also achieve goals for ethnic representation.
Various examples of affirmative racial gerrymandering have emerged. When the state legislature considered representation for Arizona's Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the Hopi and Navajo nations. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration for the 2nd congressional district that featured a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach the Hopi reservation to the rest of the district; the arrangement lasted until 2013. The California state legislature created a congressional district (2003-2013) that extended over a narrow coastal strip for several miles. It ensured that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than having portions of the coastal areas be split up into districts extending into the interior, with domination by inland concerns.
In the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court upheld on 28 June 2006, most of a Texas congressional map suggested in 2003 by former United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and enacted by the state of Texas.[28] The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared one Congressional districtunconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority.
Have you faggots heard of Affirmitive Racial Gerrymandering? Its what the faggots pushed in the past to try to provide minorities a chance to elect their own representation. People like Bernie sanders decided EQUALITY wasnt important, but doing whatever it took to get minorities the ability to vote in their own people was important. And it cost them seats by voluntarily stacking districts.
You faggots didnt care about it until you realized you played yourself and have lost the house.
Affirmative[edit]
.gif)
Shaw v. Reno was a United States Supreme Court case involving a claim that North Carolina's 12th congressional district(pictured) was affirmatively racially gerrymandered.
While the Equal Protection Clause, along with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibit jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor racial groups. The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993),[22] holding that plaintiffs "may state a claim by alleging that [redistricting] legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification". The Supreme Court reasoned that these claims were cognizable because relying on race in redistricting "reinforces racial stereotypes and threatens to undermine our system of representative democracy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole".[22]:649–650[23]:620 Later opinions characterized the type of unconstitutional harm created by racial gerrymandering as an "expressive harm",[11]:862 which law professors Richard Pildes and Richard Neimi have described as a harm "that results from the idea or attitudes expressed through a governmental action."[24]
Subsequent cases further defined the counters of racial gerrymandering claims and how those claims relate to the Voting Rights Act. In United States v. Hays(1996),[25] the Supreme Court held that only those persons who reside in a challenged district may bring a racial gerrymandering claim.[23]:623[25]:743–744 In Miller v. Johnson (1995),[26] the Supreme Court held that a redistricting plan must be subjected to strict scrutiny if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. The court defined "predominance" as meaning that the jurisdiction gave more priority to racial considerations than to traditional redistricting principles such as "compactness, contiguity, [and] respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests."[23]:621[26]:916 In determining whether racial considerations predominated over traditional redistricting principles, courts may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence of the jurisdiction's intent in drawing the district lines, and irregularly-shaped districts constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the jurisdiction relied predominately on race.[11]:869 If a court concludes that racial considerations predominated, then a redistricting plan is considered a "racially gerrymandered" plan and must be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. In Bush v. Vera (1996),[27]:983 the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion assumed that compliance with Section 2 or Section 5 of the Act constituted compelling interests, and lower courts have treated these two interests as the only compelling interests that may justify the creation of racially gerrymandered districts.[11]:877
In Hunt v. Cromartie (1999), the Supreme Court approved a racially focused gerrymandering of a congressional district on the grounds that the definition was not pure racial gerrymandering but instead partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. With the increasing racial polarization of parties in the South in the U.S. as conservative whites move from the Democratic to the Republican Party, gerrymandering may become partisan and also achieve goals for ethnic representation.
Various examples of affirmative racial gerrymandering have emerged. When the state legislature considered representation for Arizona's Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the Hopi and Navajo nations. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration for the 2nd congressional district that featured a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach the Hopi reservation to the rest of the district; the arrangement lasted until 2013. The California state legislature created a congressional district (2003-2013) that extended over a narrow coastal strip for several miles. It ensured that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than having portions of the coastal areas be split up into districts extending into the interior, with domination by inland concerns.
In the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court upheld on 28 June 2006, most of a Texas congressional map suggested in 2003 by former United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and enacted by the state of Texas.[28] The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared one Congressional districtunconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority.
- 1
- 1
Breakdown
Gunnar Durden
- 5,802
- 8,015
Democrats stacking darkies? COOL
Republicans doing it? BAD.
Please tell me how that is supposed to jive in the eyes of the law and the constitution. And the first person to mention intent gets pistol whipped because that means fuck all in the constitutional court. It either infringes on rights ort it doesnt. It is legal or it isnt.
Intent doesn't matter in banning minorities from a restaurant. Whether I want to do it because of racism or because they tip poorly, its illegal either way.
Republicans doing it? BAD.
Please tell me how that is supposed to jive in the eyes of the law and the constitution. And the first person to mention intent gets pistol whipped because that means fuck all in the constitutional court. It either infringes on rights ort it doesnt. It is legal or it isnt.
Intent doesn't matter in banning minorities from a restaurant. Whether I want to do it because of racism or because they tip poorly, its illegal either way.
- 1
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 74,914
- 146,996
the big thing here that the people who cry about gerrymandering dont seem to get is that Republican strategy is to dilute Dem representation by absorbing small, manageable portions of it in predominant red districts. thats how you get an 8-0 supermajority in Picture A
democrat strategy is to carve out crazy predominantly blue districts instead because its basically impossible for them to do the same to republicans simply because of how a map works. thats why most of the crazy gerrymandered maps you see are in Democrat strongholds trying to tie clusters of minorities together to eke out a seat. Dems live in very urban, concentrated areas, republicans live in sprawled out areas, guess where its easier to draw a district?
for example, in this map of Ohio, tell me which districts look crazier: red or blue?
now go back and look at that wisconsin map from the beginning and ask yourself the same question
btw, im not saying that gerrymandering doesnt happen on both sides. im saying that dems are the only ones who used minority based redistricting because they court minorities as a voting bloc
democrat strategy is to carve out crazy predominantly blue districts instead because its basically impossible for them to do the same to republicans simply because of how a map works. thats why most of the crazy gerrymandered maps you see are in Democrat strongholds trying to tie clusters of minorities together to eke out a seat. Dems live in very urban, concentrated areas, republicans live in sprawled out areas, guess where its easier to draw a district?
for example, in this map of Ohio, tell me which districts look crazier: red or blue?
now go back and look at that wisconsin map from the beginning and ask yourself the same question
btw, im not saying that gerrymandering doesnt happen on both sides. im saying that dems are the only ones who used minority based redistricting because they court minorities as a voting bloc
- 1
- 1