- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,691
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Basically states cannot use race to gerrymander.
Bravo for the SCOTUS taking a stand against racism!
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
SCOTUS Rules against Racial Gerrymandering
- Thread starter Always in His Presence
- Start date
Basically states cannot use race to gerrymander.
Bravo for the SCOTUS taking a stand against racism!
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,720
- 6,635
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Basically, states can racially gerrymander provided they do so primarily for partisan political reasons.
This ruling increases the likelihood of racially discrimnatory gerrymanders AND racially discrimnatory electoral outcomes.
It's created a discrimination and gerrymandering arms race. Blowback is going to be interesting, to say the least.
Upvote
0
Yttrium
Mad Scientist
- May 19, 2019
- 4,707
- 5,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
Somehow, I don't think spreading concentrations of like-minded voters to other districts is going to work as well for MAGA as they think it will. I think it will make formerly safe MAGA districts not so safe anymore.
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 12,301
- 10,236
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Never knew things could get so twisted. The ruling created a layered effect where the SCOTUS decision theoretically promises protection against disenfranchisement, but practically forbids the only effective tools (Voting Rights Act (VRA) used to fix it.
Upvote
0
Say it aint so
Well-Known Member
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,937
- 4,179
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
The way it works now is base on race, you can dilute districts, but you just can't call it gerrymandering by race.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,691
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,691
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Are you basing that on the belief that all members of a race vote the same?
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 42,403
- 17,289
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Hmmm...good strategy.
Several Democrats have replaced Republicans as governors of swing states. There is no way that statewide offices can be manipulated by gerrymandering. another good strategy would be for people hurt by gerrymandering to come out in force at the statewide elections. Democratic governors would not allow this reprehensible disenfranchising to happen
Upvote
0
Elongated
You can kill people but you can’t kill ideas.
- Jan 30, 2025
- 488
- 174
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Alito referenced inaccurate data in his opinion.
"Supreme court’s Voting Rights Act ruling cited misleading data from DoJ" #ELB
The Guardian: In his opinion gutting section 2 of the Voting Rights Act last week, Alito said that Black voter turnout had exceeded white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana. Alito’s claim … Continue reading “Supreme court’s...
electionlawblog.org
Upvote
0
Pommer
Future History Slab Carver
- Sep 13, 2008
- 25,125
- 15,283
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Oopie dupeAlito referenced inaccurate data in his opinion.
"Supreme court’s Voting Rights Act ruling cited misleading data from DoJ" #ELB
The Guardian: In his opinion gutting section 2 of the Voting Rights Act last week, Alito said that Black voter turnout had exceeded white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana. Alito’s claim … Continue reading “Supreme court’s...
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 42,403
- 17,289
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
OK, there are 24 Democratic governors and 2 Democratic territorial governors. Some of the Democratic governors are in red states (Kentucky, Virginia, Kansas, Arizona, Louisiana.) I guess that those states may really be "faux red.." and that gerrymandering has kept the will of the people at bay except for statewide elections.
With a Democratic governor and a bunch of Republican legislators from gerrymandered districts, about all the Democratic governors can do is damage control, but hey, I sure wish my state had someone up there doing damage control. No blue representation, and red supermajorities in the legislature.
I still think that that's the way forward. Get Democratic governors, lieut governors, US Senate, all the statewide offices, and eventually the legislators in the gerrymandered districts will see their days are numbered. Electing judges who weren't indoctrinated by the federalist society would help, too.
With a Democratic governor and a bunch of Republican legislators from gerrymandered districts, about all the Democratic governors can do is damage control, but hey, I sure wish my state had someone up there doing damage control. No blue representation, and red supermajorities in the legislature.
I still think that that's the way forward. Get Democratic governors, lieut governors, US Senate, all the statewide offices, and eventually the legislators in the gerrymandered districts will see their days are numbered. Electing judges who weren't indoctrinated by the federalist society would help, too.
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,691
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Why would race be a factor at all - unless my dear friends on the other side believe that all members of one race vote the same?
Here's a thought - if a State has a 40/60 split between party's - their seats should be a 40/60 split. Who would think it could be that easy. No race involved - no gerrymandering - perfect picture of the popular vote - you know - Democracy in action.
Here - Claude said it better:
True representative democracy demands that legislative bodies reflect the actual will of the people. When a state votes 60/40 in national elections but sends a monolithic delegation to Congress, millions of voters effectively lose their voice. This isn't democracy—it's winner-take-all distortion.
We should embrace proportional representation for principled reasons. First, it honors federalism's original intent: states representing their entire populace, not just the slim majority. Rural conservatives in blue states and urban conservatives in purple states deserve representation currently denied them by gerrymandered districts.
Second, proportional allocation reduces the corrupting influence of partisan gerrymandering—a practice both parties exploit. Representatives would answer to voters, not to the mapmakers who drew their safe seats.
Third, it encourages ideological diversity and coalition-building rather than hyper-partisan polarization. Legislators must appeal broadly rather than cater exclusively to primary voters.
Edmund Burke argued representatives owe constituents their judgment, not blind obedience to party. Proportional representation restores this vision—ensuring government reflects the governed, as the Founders intended.
Here's a thought - if a State has a 40/60 split between party's - their seats should be a 40/60 split. Who would think it could be that easy. No race involved - no gerrymandering - perfect picture of the popular vote - you know - Democracy in action.
Here - Claude said it better:
True representative democracy demands that legislative bodies reflect the actual will of the people. When a state votes 60/40 in national elections but sends a monolithic delegation to Congress, millions of voters effectively lose their voice. This isn't democracy—it's winner-take-all distortion.
We should embrace proportional representation for principled reasons. First, it honors federalism's original intent: states representing their entire populace, not just the slim majority. Rural conservatives in blue states and urban conservatives in purple states deserve representation currently denied them by gerrymandered districts.
Second, proportional allocation reduces the corrupting influence of partisan gerrymandering—a practice both parties exploit. Representatives would answer to voters, not to the mapmakers who drew their safe seats.
Third, it encourages ideological diversity and coalition-building rather than hyper-partisan polarization. Legislators must appeal broadly rather than cater exclusively to primary voters.
Edmund Burke argued representatives owe constituents their judgment, not blind obedience to party. Proportional representation restores this vision—ensuring government reflects the governed, as the Founders intended.
Say it aint so
Well-Known Member
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,937
- 4,179
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,691
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Similar threads
