Supreme Court sides with SC Republicans on "Limited Negroes In Congress" law

[RobDownSouth]

Alito authors a 6-3 ruling siding with South Carolina in racial gerrymandering case​

Back to the back of the bus, boy!

 

[MajorRewrite]

Alito authors a 6-3 ruling siding with South Carolina in racial gerrymandering case​

Back to the back of the bus, boy!

A competent Supreme Court would rule all gerrymandering illegal.

 

[Rightguide]

A competent Supreme Court would rule all gerrymandering illegal.

That wasn't the question before the court.

 

[MajorRewrite]

That wasn't the question before the court.

They ruled that the gerrymander is okay because it’s partisan and not racial (although it’s clearly racial).

 

[Rightguide]

They ruled that the gerrymander is okay because it’s partisan and not racial (although it’s clearly racial).

Gerrymandering is considered racist and potentially illegal when it is carried out with the intent to discriminate against voters based on their race or ethnicity. This violates the principles of equal representation and voting rights enshrined in various laws and constitutional provisions. Gerrymandering is considered racist and illegal when it systematically disadvantages racial or ethnic minority groups in the electoral process, either through discriminatory intent or disparate impact on voting rights. The legal standards for evaluating racial gerrymandering may vary depending on jurisdiction and state laws, and challenges to gerrymandered maps often involve complex legal analyses and judicial review.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Gerrymandering is considered racist and potentially illegal when it is carried out with the intent to discriminate against voters based on their race or ethnicity. This violates the principles of equal representation and voting rights enshrined in various laws and constitutional provisions. Gerrymandering is considered racist and illegal when it systematically disadvantages racial or ethnic minority groups in the electoral process, either through discriminatory intent or disparate impact on voting rights. The legal standards for evaluating racial gerrymandering may vary depending on jurisdiction and state laws, and challenges to gerrymandered maps often involve complex legal analyses and judicial review.

Your quote andds nothing to the discussion.

As I said, it’s pathetic that our incompetent Supreme Court condones gerrymandering in any form, partisan or racial.

 

[Rightguide]

Your quote andds nothing to the discussion.

As I said, it’s pathetic that our incompetent Supreme Court condones gerrymandering in any form, partisan or racial.

They don't have a choice you dumb shit. The states have a constitutional right to draw their districts. It just can't be done illegally.

 

[MajorRewrite]

They don't have a choice you dumb shit. The states have a constitutional right to draw their districts. It just can't be done illegally.

And the court could rule that gerrymandering is illegal because it infringes on the voters’ right to fair representation.

But the court doesn’t do that because they’re political hacks.

 

[Rightguide]

And the court could rule that gerrymandering is illegal because it infringes on the voters’ right to fair representation.

But the court doesn’t do that because they’re political hacks.

Only if it's done illegally!

 

[MajorRewrite]

Only if it's done illegally!

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times in the past that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The current incompetent Court ignores those precedents and says “meh, partisan bullshit is fine.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States#Legality

 

[Rightguide]

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times in the past that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The current incompetent Court ignores those precedents and says “meh, partisan bullshit is fine.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States#Legality

All gerrymandering is in practice "partisan." Every time a new party takes control of a state they attempt to rearrange the political districts. Gerrymandering itself isn't inherently illegal in the United States. Gerrymandering on the basis of race is illegal. The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to dilute the voting power of a particular racial group, or to segregate voters along racial lines, is unconstitutional and violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the U.S. The Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or membership in a minority language group. That's all I'm saying.

 

[ll74]

All gerrymandering is in practice "partisan." Every time a new party takes control of a state they attempt to rearrange the political districts. Gerrymandering itself isn't inherently illegal in the United States. Gerrymandering on the basis of race is illegal. The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to dilute the voting power of a particular racial group, or to segregate voters along racial lines, is unconstitutional and violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the U.S. The Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or membership in a minority language group. That's all I'm saying.

The line between partisan gerrymander and race gerrymander is very blurred most of the time....as one of the justices mentioned.

Districts should be drawn by independent bodies that include input from all parties.

 

[Bn2f]

...That's all I'm saying.

Douche has really said nothing this whole thread.

 

[Bn2f]

The word gerrymander never appears in the constitution.

 

[jaF0]

Districts should be drawn by independent bodies that include input from all parties.

Districts should be drawn by independent bodies that do not include any input from any parties.

 

[ll74]

Districts should be drawn by independent bodies that do not include any input from any parties.

If the American people decide parties aren't the way they like to be represented, then yes.

That will never happen.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If the American people decide parties aren't the way they like to be represented, then yes.

That will never happen.

I thought Gov Schwarzenegger enacted proportional representation for California? Supposed to be a model for the rest of the country? I might be mistaken.

 

[jaF0]

Let the people who live and work together decide who represents them rather than the parties deciding who they should allow to vote for them.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let the people who live and work together decide who represents them rather than the parties deciding who they should allow to vote for them.

Easy in theory, I suspect it's difficult to do in the "real world". Contiguous vs. proportional is a never-ending battle.
If you have to split a major city in half, where do you do this?

 

[jaF0]

If you have to split a major city in half, where do you do this?

Existing geographical feature, natural or man-made. Major road, railroad, river, etc.

The key is that no party should have any say at all.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Existing geographical feature, natural or man-made. Major road, railroad, river, etc.

Good point. I guess here in Houston the dividing line would be Interstate 10, which bisects the city.

(our squirrely gerrymandering is now gone for the 2024 election, which puts Dan "Popeye" Crenshaw at grave risk since they've redistricted him out of damned near every single trailer park in north Houston.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I thought Gov Schwarzenegger enacted proportional representation for California? Supposed to be a model for the rest of the country? I might be mistaken.

The idea was to take redistricting out of the hands of the party that runs the dysfunctional state and put it in the hands of independent commission. Made perfect sense.

Problem is there’s no such thing as “independent” commissioners and even if there were, the rules they must follow require consideration of “communities of interest.”

My CA house is located in Silicon Valley. My district is represented by a Congressman who lives in Carmel Valley in Monterey County. Anyone familiar with CA geography can recognize how silly that is.

I served on a city redistricting commission after the 2020 census. I thought it would be a relatively straightforward exercise. Sensible boundaries, mostly square and rectangular, with some deviations that allowed for natural boundaries and traffic corridors.

Nope. The commission was appointed by elected representatives, and stacked with highly partisan appointees. When all was said and done, the boundaries looked like a jigsaw puzzle.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Gerrymandering is considered racist and potentially illegal when it is carried out with the intent to discriminate against voters based on their race or ethnicity. w.

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM, and why South Carolina did it, and exactly why South Carolina should NOT have gotten away with it. And yet another example of a rogue, partisan, and corrupted Supreme Court that cares nothing for justice, rule of law, or the Constitution.

Because yes, a competant Supreme Court would rule that all gerrymandering is illegal.

Of course now, Snailspace, you, and the Wizzard/Hisarpy/Icanhelp guy can celebrate that "Now those negroes won't be able to vote and ruin MY DEMOCRACY."

 

[dkovic77]

The idea was to take redistricting out of the hands of the party that runs the dysfunctional state and put it in the hands of independent commission. Made perfect sense.

Problem is there’s no such thing as “independent” commissioners and even if there were, the rules they must follow require consideration of “communities of interest.”

My CA house is located in Silicon Valley. My district is represented by a Congressman who lives in Carmel Valley in Monterey County. Anyone familiar with CA geography can recognize how silly that is.

I served on a city redistricting commission after the 2020 census. I thought it would be a relatively straightforward exercise. Sensible boundaries, mostly square and rectangular, with some deviations that allowed for natural boundaries and traffic corridors.

Nope. The commission was appointed by elected representatives, and stacked with highly partisan appointees. When all was said and done, the boundaries looked like a jigsaw puzzle.

Awww did you laugh? You usually laugh, we count on the laughter and then Nazi salute. It’s so funny.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Drawing district lines might be an excellent use for AI. Remove the human influence.