re: SCOTUS rules on Callais

Here are the first reverberations already rippling ....

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

LOL they really just said this out loud: "The challengers are going to have to say that there are no race-neutral reasons for this. And that's awfully hard, especially because of the partisan alignment between whites generally voting Republican and blacks generally being affiliated with the Democratic Party."

And there you have it, folks. Wonder why your communities have been overrun with massive, unending, unfettered waves of legal (H1B) and illegal immigrants? Because Democrats figured out a long time ago that they can’t win the votes of white middleclass Americans.

That’s the whole racket ... admitted on live TV in a moment of panic after SCOTUS gutted Section 2 of the VRA.

---

Lol

There's no "active litigation" dummy. It's over.

Then God Bless the Supreme Court of United States of America.

quote:

---

Your leftist allies have already squeezed that lemon.

---

No, they haven't. California, IL, WA, CO, OR, etc. can very easily be drawn to not have a single GOP district.

quote:

---

Does this ruling hurt the democratic party?

---

Yes. Before Callais, under cases like Gingles (and reaffirmed in Allen v. Milligan) the courts often required states to draw majority-minority districts if certain conditions were met in order to comply with Section 2 of the VRA. There aren't specific conditions in Section 2 for when to create a minority-majority voting district, those came from how SCOTUS ruled in Gingles.

Essentially:
-the minority group must be big enough and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a single district
-the group must tend to vote similarly (as a bloc)
-the white majority (or another majority group) votes consistently enough to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate

Even once those conditions were met, there were the "Senate Factors" which courts were supposed to look at (which could be more subjective).
-Is there a history of discrimination in the state?
-Is there racial polarization in voting?
-Is there a use of voting practices that enhance discrimination?
-Historical minority candidates’ success rates
-Whether elected officials are responsive to minority communities

What Callias has done has removed the conditions of minority vote dilution and statistical disparities from Gingles, leaving the sole criteria to be clear justification that race-based districts are strictly necessary (read: requiring proof closer to intentional discrimination, not just effects).

How does this hurt the Democratic Party?

Currently there are 125 non-white (racial/ethnic minority) members of the House; 105 (~84%) of them are Democrats with ~35 (~1/3) of those are from red or purple states. Even if only half of those are from racially gerrymandered districts in red/purple states (Cleo Fields, Troy Carter, etc), that could well be a loss of 17-ish seats in the House due just to redistricting from Callais.

so what do we expect to happen to Cleo Fields? It seems like this is the distric that will be mostly effected by this ruling.

Also looking at the map I see how BS it is. How can a district contain Baton Rouge, Alexandria, and Shreveport? edit: And Lafayette too.

quote:

---

quote:

---

will this apply to the rest of the unconstitutional redistricting happening in cali and the rest of the shite states?

---

Only if they explicitly did it based on race

Doing it based on party might be fine

---

Not exactly. Minority-majority districts can still be created; they just can't be gerrymandered into existence, nor can the courts mandate their creation without proof of actual discrimination (which was what happened in Callais).

The issue isn't the redistricting, it's the gerrymandering.

This also applies to all type of districts.

Local Judge districts.
Councilman
State Reps and Senators.

Course someone will have to sue, and they will.

This puts every type of voting district in jeopardy for carved out minority districts.

A huge win for common sense and MLK Jr dream. Judged by content of character.

quote:

---

Does this ruling hurt the democratic party? Yes. Before Callais, under cases like Gingles (and reaffirmed in Allen v. Milligan) the courts often required states to draw majority-minority districts if certain conditions were met in order to comply with Section 2 of the VRA. There aren't specific conditions in Section 2 for when to create a minority-majority voting district, those came from how SCOTUS ruled in Gingles. Essentially: -the minority group must be big enough and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a single district -the group must tend to vote similarly (as a bloc) -the white majority (or another majority group) votes consistently enough to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate Even once those conditions were met, there were the "Senate Factors" which courts were supposed to look at (which could be more subjective). -Is there a history of discrimination in the state? -Is there racial polarization in voting? -Is there a use of voting practices that enhance discrimination? -Historical minority candidates’ success rates -Whether elected officials are responsive to minority communities What Callias has done has removed the conditions of minority vote dilution and statistical disparities from Gingles, leaving the sole criteria to be clear justification that race-based districts are strictly necessary (read: requiring proof closer to intentional discrimination, not just effects). How does this hurt the Democratic Party? Currently there are 125 non-white (racial/ethnic minority) members of the House; 105 (~84%) of them are Democrats with ~35 (~1/3) of those are from red or purple states. Even if only half of those are from racially gerrymandered districts in red/purple states (Cleo Fields, Troy Carter, etc), that could well be a loss of 17-ish seats in the House due just to redistricting from Callais.

---

Will those states redistrict in time?