Will The Scotus Declare Race-based Gerrymandering Unconstitutional?

[Rightguide]

If the Supreme Court rejects Louisiana v. Callais, it could mark the beginning of the end for Democrat national dominance. A 6–3 majority on the Court has the potential to overturn race-based gerrymandering, the practice of drawing congressional districts to dilute white voter influence in favor of engineered majority-minority seats. Striking down this scheme could cost Democrats up to 25 House seats, exposing just how much of their power rests on racially rigged maps rather than genuine support.

 

[ll74]

So do you have an answer to your own question?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I served on a redistricting commission in California. The term “communities of interest” was a core criteria. The commission essentially considered Asians,Caucasians, and Hispanics to be communities of interest.

 

[Rightguide]

So do you have an answer to your own question?

There is this:

"On Friday, the justices instructed the parties to address a specific question: whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates either the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment, which bars both the federal government and states from denying or abridging the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Both amendments were enacted in the wake of the Civil War in an effort to establish equality for formerly enslaved persons."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/court-asks-for-new-briefs-in-louisiana-redistricting-case/


By zeroing in on intentional racial design, the Court is putting the spotlight on the core tactic behind race-based gerrymandering: using race as the primary factor to carve out districts, not to ensure fairness, but to create a specific racial outcome, usually to benefit Democrats. If the Court rules that such deliberate racial engineering violates the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) or the Voting Rights protections (15th Amendment), it would undercut the legal justification for creating “majority-minority” districts solely to favor racial representation. That in mind, I think we could be seeing a 6-3 defeat of race-based gerrymandering, which is the tool used by the Democrats for decades to create voting districts that benefit them.

 

[RoryN]

I served on a redistricting commission in California. The term “communities of interest” was a core criteria. The commission essentially considered Asians,Caucasians, and Hispanics to be communities of interest.

***

[Elizabeth Holms riots] Geez, the case hasn’t even gone to the jury and the rioters in CA are already looting the high end fashion stores. If the verdict goes the wrong way the streets of Walnut Creek, San Francisco, and LA could be filled with blondes in black turtlenecks. Not even going to guess how this would all go down if she were black.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/elizabeth-holmes-riots.1556275/

I notice you didn't deny your racism.

I stand by my posts.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...-poles-at-white-house.1635778/#post-101160065

 

[ll74]

There is this:

"On Friday, the justices instructed the parties to address a specific question: whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates either the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment, which bars both the federal government and states from denying or abridging the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Both amendments were enacted in the wake of the Civil War in an effort to establish equality for formerly enslaved persons."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/court-asks-for-new-briefs-in-louisiana-redistricting-case/


By zeroing in on intentional racial design, the Court is putting the spotlight on the core tactic behind race-based gerrymandering: using race as the primary factor to carve out districts, not to ensure fairness, but to create a specific racial outcome, usually to benefit Democrats. If the Court rules that such deliberate racial engineering violates the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) or the Voting Rights protections (15th Amendment), it would undercut the legal justification for creating “majority-minority” districts solely to favor racial representation. That in mind, I think we could be seeing a 6-3 defeat of race-based gerrymandering, which is the tool used by the Democrats for decades to create voting districts that benefit them.

Look at you getting into the Dispatch.

Gerrymandering should be illegal.

 

[Rightguide]

Look at you getting into the Dispatch.

Gerrymandering should be illegal.

If it isn't on your judicial reading list, one's understanding of court issues suffers.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If the Supreme Court rejects Louisiana v. Callais, it could mark the beginning of the end for Democrat national dominance. A 6–3 majority on the Court has the potential to overturn race-based gerrymandering, the practice of drawing congressional districts to dilute white voter influence in favor of engineered majority-minority seats. Striking down this scheme could cost Democrats up to 25 House seats, exposing just how much of their power rests on racially rigged maps rather than genuine support.

Vette is longing for the days….

 

[ll74]

If it isn't on your judicial reading list, one's understanding of court issues suffers.

AO is the best source of information.

 

[Rightguide]

AO is the best source of information.

Yes, if you want to drill down.

 

[ll74]

Yes, if you want to drill down.

If you want information. (Hence best source)

 

[MajorRewrite]

If the Supreme Court rejects Louisiana v. Callais, it could mark the beginning of the end for Democrat national dominance. A 6–3 majority on the Court has the potential to overturn race-based gerrymandering, the practice of drawing congressional districts to dilute white voter influence in favor of engineered majority-minority seats. Striking down this scheme could cost Democrats up to 25 House seats, exposing just how much of their power rests on racially rigged maps rather than genuine support.

Right now Texas is attempting to redistrict in a way that carves up areas with large populations of minorities to dilute their impact.

If gerrymandering is outlawed, the Democrats will benefit hugely.

 

[schism666]

Yes, if you want to drill down.

you don't ever read the entire article you post. it's why so many of your threads backfire, vetteman.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I served on a redistricting commission in California. The term “communities of interest” was a core criteria. The commission essentially considered Asians,Caucasians, and Hispanics to be communities of interest.

Essentially nothing more than thinly disguised segregation.

 

[ll74]

Gerrymandering should be illegal.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Gerrymandering should be illegal.

Defining it is the problem. One person’s idea of a gerrymandered district is another’s definition of an “equitable” district. My old district in CA is gerrymandered AF.

 

[ll74]

Defining it is the problem. One person’s idea of a gerrymandered district is another’s definition of an “equitable” district. My old district in CA is gerrymandered AF.

Party in power redistricting to retain power.

Not a problem.

 

[YDB95]

By zeroing in on intentional racial design, the Court is putting the spotlight on the core tactic behind race-based gerrymandering: using race as the primary factor to carve out districts, not to ensure fairness, but to create a specific racial outcome, usually to benefit Democrats.

Majority-minority districts became a thing in the first place to undo decades of what could only be called race-based gerrymandering: diluting the black vote (if they could vote at all) to increase the chance of electing only more conservative white members. (And yes, it was usually to benefit Democrats: Southern right-wing Democrats in places that now elect only Republicans.) But there are at least two things you're overlooking here:
1. The most egregious examples of gerrymandering to maximize the number of majority-minority districts were actually engineered by Republicans back in the '80s and '90s, to pack as many Democratic voters into the fewest possible districts so the surrounding ones were whiter and more conservative.
2. If the Coathanger Five outlaw using race as a factor in creating districts, a lot of those nice safe Republican districts in the suburbs and rural areas are suddenly going to end up much more diverse and thus more competitive. Careful what you wish for!

 

[eric_erosfan]

Imagine districts with a mix of political parties. Representatives that have to win the vote from both Democrats and Republicans. More compromise. More cooperation.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Party in power redistricting to retain power.

Not a problem.

That’s the way it’s done in all 50 states. Some states, including California, have “independent” commissions for congressional redistricting, but the reality is those independent commissioners are selected by the party in power. (The redistricting commission I served on in CA was county supervisor districts)

 

[YDB95]

Imagine districts with a mix of political parties. Representatives that have to win the vote from both Democrats and Republicans. More compromise. More cooperation.

Yeah, no. In order to have any potential at all for compromise and cooperation, there has to be common ground. There is no common ground to be had between a party that wants government to function as intended, and a party that hates government and wants it to fail at everything except validating people's bigotry.

 

[ll74]

That’s the way it’s done in all 50 states. Some states, including California, have “independent” commissions for congressional redistricting, but the reality is those independent commissioners are selected by the party in power. (The redistricting commission I served on in CA was county supervisor districts)

Many states have independent commissions. Some of those are not chosen by the party in power.

Gerrymandering should be illegal