Voting discussion thread
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Alabama currently has a direct appeal pending before the Supreme Court over its court-imposed congressional map that adds a second majority-black seat. The Court has taken no action on it since November, likely waiting for a ruling in Callais.
They are all based on race, just most favor the white race, and that is how the GOP wants it to remain.
Tell, why are people so scared of black districts, but perfectly fine with districts drawn to favor whites?
Tell, why are people so scared of black districts, but perfectly fine with districts drawn to favor whites?
I'm not in favor of districts drawn to benefit any race. It's unconstitutional.
NEW: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas issues a separate concurrence agreeing with the majority 6-3 decision on racial gerrymandering, but says he would have gone further: “Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence. As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all. The relevant text prohibits States from imposing or applying a “voting qualification,” “prerequisite to voting,” or “standard, practice, or procedure,” in a manner that results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race. 52 U. S. C. §10301(a). How States draw district lines does not fall within any of those three categories. The words in §2 instead “reach only ‘enactments that regulate citizens’ access to the ballot or the processes for counting a ballot’; they ‘do not include a State’s . . . choice of one districting scheme over another.’” Therefore, no §2 challenge to districting should ever succeed.”
While plenty of legal commentators were lighting their hair on fire this morning (and afternoon) over the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act, CBS's Jan Crawford jumped on the CBS News Special Report mere minutes after it came down and did, well, the opposite.Just the facts....as it should be.
Breaking: Justice Dept says it will enforce SCOTUS ruling in every state with racially gerrymandered districts
I'd be willing to bet several / many districts in the northeast will be challenged.
As I said before - any gerrymandering that puts any race above another should be banished.
I’m also against gerrymandering based on principle alone.
But posting this seems weird as there’s seemingly zero chance a republican DOJ will go after republican seats…
Doing any legal thing by race is immoral, un-American, and violates the "equal protection" clause of the XIV amendment.
The idea that only a white person can represents white person and only a black person can represent a black person reduces people to the color of their skin. It also renders moot any political debate, because you just vote for the candidate whose skin color matches yours.
Even if it is true that only a black man can represent a black man, black Mississippians (for example) will still have their votes for governor, senator, etc.
As I said on the Virginia redistricting, what this type of gerrymandering does is to spread the same number of voters (of whatever minority group) over more races. In Virginia, the same Republican-voting Virginians will cast ballots in elections, but now, it will be possible to build coalitions in more districts. In the Virginia 3rd, there used to be X number of Democrats and Y number of Republicans. Those two numbers will get a lot closer with the new districts. Still a Democrat majority, but now, Virginia will have fewer uncontested elections and if the majority party commits an egregious faux pas, or nominates a clunker of a candidate, the party ostensibly in the majority might actually lose.
The idea that only a white person can represents white person and only a black person can represent a black person reduces people to the color of their skin. It also renders moot any political debate, because you just vote for the candidate whose skin color matches yours.
Even if it is true that only a black man can represent a black man, black Mississippians (for example) will still have their votes for governor, senator, etc.
As I said on the Virginia redistricting, what this type of gerrymandering does is to spread the same number of voters (of whatever minority group) over more races. In Virginia, the same Republican-voting Virginians will cast ballots in elections, but now, it will be possible to build coalitions in more districts. In the Virginia 3rd, there used to be X number of Democrats and Y number of Republicans. Those two numbers will get a lot closer with the new districts. Still a Democrat majority, but now, Virginia will have fewer uncontested elections and if the majority party commits an egregious faux pas, or nominates a clunker of a candidate, the party ostensibly in the majority might actually lose.
That to me is the frustrating thing about Virginia redistricting. Virginians had done away with gerrymandering until politicians clawed that power back.
I hope it backfires on all of them: Texas, Illinois, California, Virginia, North Carolina and likely soon to be Louisiana and Florida. I absolutely despise this political gerrymandering.
Me too. The parties might learn something.
In Virginia, I looked at the 2025 voting by party by district and while they had nots of 80-20 districts before, not they have 60-40 districts
Trending content
Latest threads
-
No. 24 Alabama Cruises to 5-0 Win Over Vanderbilt on Friday- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Big Ten distributes record $1.37 billion in revenu...- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: No. 4 ranked RB Roberts commits to Longhorns
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Gophers QB Lindsey arrested for fake ID, alcohol
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-