Gerrymandering in Virginia

#903
#903
BigOrangeMojo said:
Less than 20% of Memphis is white in 2026. We know what you were saying without you explicitly saying it....
Click to expand...
1) did not know the percentages
2) one of the worst performing school districts in the nation (top 5) - that means probably not the smartest area
3) don’t care what you think you know I was saying - didn’t know you were a progressive looking for racism behind every bush like OHvol40
4) There are lots of towns all over Tn, Ms, Ar I would classify as dumb too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77 and whodeycin85
#904
#904
OHvol40 said:
It’s happening to the same communities that were oppressed by Jim Crow. The came the voting rights act in ‘65. The SC essentially nullified section 2 of the VRA, which was Congress’s version of enshrining the 15th amendment into enforceable law.
Click to expand...
The problem with your position is the 14th amendment--the "equal protections under the law" bit. You can't just carve out a race of people to get extra protections under the law.

From SCOTUS on the matter:
These cases concern whether Louisiana’s new congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In 2022, after the State redrew its congressional districts, a federal judge in Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (MD La.), held that the 2022 map likely violated §2 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., because it did not include an additional majority-black district. But when the State drew a new map, SB8, that contained such a district, the new map waschallenged as a racial gerrymander. A three-judge court in Callais v. Landry, 732 F. Supp. 3d 574 (WD La.), held that SB8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the State appealed to this Court.
Click to expand...

LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS background:

The state wanted to (I assume politically) gerrymander the state in Republican favor. They were basically told by a lower court that they couldn't do it because they have to favor the rights of one race above the rights of everyone else. The lower court literally imposed a map based on race. The SCOTUS rightfully ruled that this was unconstitutional and broke the constitutional principal of EQUAL protection under the law.



...



OHvol40 said:
It’s happening to the same communities that were oppressed by Jim Crow. The came the voting rights act in ‘65...
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to be arguing that one race gets unequal favor under the law due to previous injustices. SCOTUS seems to have taken pains to address that. You can't just play fast and loose in the name of reparations.

SCOTUS:


As amended in 1982, §2 states: “(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . as provided in subsection (b).“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorateto participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” 52 U. S. C. §10301.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS (IMO) correctly interpreted that the intent and text of the law in question was to reiterate and guarantee equal protections under the law. Trying to use it to create some specially protected class is unconstitutional.


(3) On the “totality of circumstances” inquiry, the focus must be on evidence that has more than a remote bearing on what the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits: present-day intentional racial discrimination regarding voting. Discrimination that occurred some time ago and present-day disparities characterized as ongoing “effects of societal discrimination” are entitled to much less weight. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 909–910. Pp. 30–31.
Click to expand...

(Note that the last sentence also harms your apparent argument that previous inequalities justify creating present inequalities.

...


OHvol40 said:
The SC essentially nullified section 2 of the VRA, which was Congress’s version of enshrining the 15th amendment into enforceable law.
Click to expand...

They seem to have restored it, as section 2 of the VRA states that it exists to:

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
Click to expand...

A: Minority rights to vote are not denied.
B: The law states that it exists to preserve equality for ANY citizen.


Again: If political gerrymandering is legal and allowed, you don't get to just pick a class of people to protect against its effects.
 
#906
#906
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#907
#907
BowlBrother85 said:
It's naive to think that the Republican strategy of redistricting doesn't involve neutralizing black representation in the House of Representatives.

It doesn't look like Republicans in South Carolina are going to attempt to redraw their map in order to go after Rep. Jim Clyburn's seat, because they understand that Clyburn (a well-respected black man) is very popular with black voters in South Carolina and they are scared of a potential backlash from an effort to muscle Clyburn out through gerrymandering, but the Trump Administration sure tried like hell to get them to do it anyway.

No one has taken away the right of blacks to vote, but Republicans are trying to limit how much representation they have in the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
It is racist to say that groups based on skin color should have proportional representation. We each get a vote, that is all.
Besides the percentage of blacks in Congress is around 15% which is in line with their percentage in the overall population. By your thinking shouldn't a back woman represent Memphis over an old white dude? Well that is probably be what happens and the libs are gonna be pissed because she is conservative. Racist hypocrites.
Quit being a racist.
 
#908
#908
Here’s something that’s really dumb…I’m at the gym watching this lady do leg pulls and lunges all over the biceps machine….and no Mojo and Ohvol, she’s not black
 
#909
#909
rekinhavoc said:
www.frontpagemag.com

"Extremely Scary": CA Dems to Change Election Rules Out of Fear of GOP Wins | Frontpage Mag

“It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it”
www.frontpagemag.com www.frontpagemag.com

“Democracy”, as we all know, only works when Democrats win elections. Any time Democrats don’t win elections, “democracy is under attack.”
California Democrats thoroughly rigged elections so it’s already a one-party state. And they liked the idea of effectively jettisoning primaries because they were able to have general elections with Democrats running against Democrats.
Now, suddenly, they face the “specter” of a gubernatorial election in which there are too many unpopular and unknown Dems, leading to one or even two GOPers on the final ballot.
Here’s the LA Times, not even pretending that it’s anything but a set of political talking points from its party, expressing terror over the prospect.

I guess, democracy is under attack again.

But mostly Dems. Now suddenly it might be Republicans and the system needs to be changed.

There was no “concern” when Dems were shutting out Republicans, but the other way around is unacceptable.

Just understand that “democracy” is Democrats winning and “disenfranchising” is Democrats not winning. Whether it’s ranked choice voting, open or any other gimmick, mail-in ballots, the election system will be remade as many times as it takes to ensure that one single outcome. That’s not democracy, it’s a casino tyranny."
Click to expand...
If it ends up with a Republican mayor of LA and a Republican Governor, it will be an epic meltdown in the lib world. I can't wait. Just when they thought they couldn't lose another, in a long string of losses. California has been a lock for decades.
Maybe they should learn a lesson, their ideas suck.
 
#910
#910
BeardedVol said:
5 Republicans will be called 'RINOs' by MAGA in right-wing news outlets for the foreseeable future and subsequently primaried by candidates funded by MAGA PACs in the next SC election.

www.nbcnews.com

South Carolina Senate rejects effort to tackle redistricting despite pressure from Trump

Five Republicans defected and voted against a plan to extend their legislative session to carve up the state’s lone Democratic U.S. House district.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
That's how the system works. (Except when Democrats bypass primaries and assign a candidate.)
 
#912
#912
rikberry31 said:
It is racist to say that groups based on skin color should have proportional representation. We each get a vote, that is all.
Besides the percentage of blacks in Congress is around 15% which is in line with their percentage in the overall population. By your thinking shouldn't a back woman represent Memphis over an old white dude? Well that is probably be what happens and the libs are gonna be pissed because she is conservative. Racist hypocrites.
Quit being a racist.
Click to expand...

You do know the Republican party has been trying to get Brent Taylor (old white dude) to run against Charlotte Bergman in that R primary...
 
#914
#914
BigOrangeMojo said:
You do know the Republican party has been trying to get Brent Taylor (old white dude) to run against Charlotte Bergman in that R primary...
Click to expand...
Primaries are what happens in a representative republic. I realize that is a foreign concept to democrats.
 
#915
#915
rikberry31 said:
It is racist to say that groups based on skin color should have proportional representation. We each get a vote, that is all.
Besides the percentage of blacks in Congress is around 15% which is in line with their percentage in the overall population. By your thinking shouldn't a back woman represent Memphis over an old white dude? Well that is probably be what happens and the libs are gonna be pissed because she is conservative. Racist hypocrites.
Quit being a racist.
Click to expand...
I never used the words "proportional representation."

That is YOUR description; NOT MINE.

I'm saying that Republicans are trying to limit black voters into having LITTLE TO NO representation at all ... and yes, that is racist as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#916
#916
BowlBrother85 said:
I never used the words "proportional representation" at all.

That is YOUR description; NOT MINE.

I'm saying that Republicans are trying to prevent black voters from having LITTLE TO NO representation at all ... and yes, that is racist as hell.
Click to expand...
It’s racist to have a black woman represent blacks.

This is a Chappelle show skit. 🤣
 
#917
#917
BowlBrother85 said:
I never used the words "proportional representation" at all.

That is YOUR description; NOT MINE.

I'm saying that Republicans are trying black voters from having ANY representation at all ... and yes, that is racist as hell.
Click to expand...
How are they not being represented? Are they not voting? It is racist to say that only a person of the same skin color can represent a person. I would say that you are racist as hell.
I personally don't care if a purple polka dotted person represents me as long as they are a right thinking American.
Quit being a racist.
 
#919
#919
rikberry31 said:
It is racist to say that groups based on skin color should have proportional representation. We each get a vote, that is all.
Besides the percentage of blacks in Congress is around 15% which is in line with their percentage in the overall population. By your thinking shouldn't a back woman represent Memphis over an old white dude? Well that is probably be what happens and the libs are gonna be pissed because she is conservative. Racist hypocrites.
Quit being a racist.
Click to expand...
... and when I say that blacks should have some representation in the House of Representatives, I'm obviously not saying that there should be a black member of the House of Representatives

I'm saying that those black constituents should have people from their communities representing their interests in the House of Representatives.
 
#920
#920
rikberry31 said:
How are they not being represented?
Click to expand...
Are you really this thick?

Anyone who has ever been to Memphis knows how racially segregated it is. That is a reality.

Republicans in Tennessee have gerrymandered the district map in such a way as to guarantee that most black voters in Memphis, will have NOBODY who resides in their individual towns representing them in the House of Representatives.

That was done completely by design and it is absolutely racist.
 
#921
#921
Jxn Vol said:
It’s racist to have a black woman represent blacks.

This is a Chappelle show skit. 🤣
Click to expand...
That is not what I said at all.

It is racist to gerrymander a district map in such a way as to guarantee that a vast majority of black voters in Memphis will not have anyone from their individual towns representing them in the House of Representatives.

Once again, we all know how racially segregated the greater Memphis area is.
 
#923
#923
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not what I said at all.

It is racist to gerrymander a district map in such a way as to guarantee that black voters will not have anyone from their individual towns representing them in the House of Representatives.

Once again, we all know how segregated the greater Memphis area is.
Click to expand...
It wasn't changed for racial purposes. It was changed for political ones. If it had been an all white district but was consistently voting D it would have been changed. Still wrong but it's not about race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Orange_Crush
#924
#924
volfanhill said:
It wasn't changed for racial purposes. It was changed for political ones. If it had been an all white district but was consistently voting D it would have been changed. Still wrong but it's not about race.
Click to expand...
Well, of course, it was changed for political purposes! Good Lord!!!!!!

.... but the way the district map was drawn was absolutely racist.
 
#925
#925
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not what I said at all.

It is racist to gerrymander a district map in such a way as to guarantee that a vast majority of black voters in Memphis will not have anyone from their individual towns representing them in the House of Representatives.

Once again, we all know how racially segregated the greater Memphis area is.
Click to expand...
Only if the reason behind the redistricting was racially motivated. No more than white representation being altered when their communities are drawn to be driven by unnatural boundaries for party-benefit.

Again, gerrymandering for political purposes is legal. Taking race into consideration is illegal. To bar a district from being redrawn based strictly on racial protections is illegal. You either have to pass laws barring all politically-driven unnatural redistricting, or you have to allow it and not make race a protected class against it.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top