SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

[Foxi4]

I have to ask...is that what you think this SCOTUS decision is about?

I feel there must be a misunderstanding here, because the recent SCOTUS decision is about the *response* to the obvious gerrymandering you mention. As in, the attempt to fix it, to undo the weird line you're complaining about. Thats where they've stepped in and said actually racial gerrymandering is fine unless you can prove it was intentional - I mean, we both know it was, but good luck proving it.

That’s not quite right. The “line” was created as a second “black majority” district to comply with a federal judge’s order from 2022. The ruling is not a response to “an attempt to fix it”, it’s Cleo Fields’ current district. You might be referring to the previous map which also ended up in the trash, on the exact opposite grounds - insufficient representation.

Wow, very creative. Just side stepping the entire point.
Here let me make it clear.
White voters prior and up and included to the civil rights era, discriminated against black voters, and by extentsion, other people of color.

The old map, was heavily gerrymandered. It was proveably an unfair to black americans, by decreasing their vote.

A group of black Americans, challenged it under section 2.
Got a new district.

Some white people, decided, to sue.

The supreme Court sided with those white people.

who is being discriminated against foxi4

Racial Discrimination requires a a perpetrator/beneficiary, and a victim. Someone is getting an unfair advantage, and some is getting a disadvantage.

Post automatically merged: May 1, 2026

Also I can play the image game too
View attachment 570800

If you’re not going to dedicate the time to read my posts in their entirety then there’s not much point in having the discussion, I outlined in detail how this affects all residents involved. Race should not be a determining factor in these matters.

*Eye roll*

Also pedophile loving Trump supporters really have no business claiming racism, just saying.

Another pivot due to a profound lack of an actual rebuttal. Strike three, you’re out - you’re not going to waste my time with “uhh, b-but the orange man”.

Interesting, I learned that after civil war and reconstruction era, southern states heavily rely on racial gerrymandering to protect the white voters until mid 20th century.

Before court ruling in 1986, congressional districts in Alabama were drawn based on community like 6th district cover all of Jefferson County that where moderate democrat won the election. That changed after 1992 when they made 7th district as majority minority due to court order and it make 6th district extremely conservative.

Democrats in Alabama could win as much as 2 congressional districts after political realignment completed after 2010, so 5 other congressional districts are permanent republican control unless there is miracle like Hungary or another realignment.

It is kinda sucks that safe seats grow fast and competing seats get much less nowadays.

I started to skip the primary election because it is no useful for me since no democrats opt to compete (outside of state governor and US senator) and democrats in Alabama is dead outside of black belt and Birmingham.

Democrats don’t show up to compete in the area, Democrats most affected? I don’t think that’s any reason at all to provide them with a handicap. Their unwillingness to build good will and a presence over time is no excuse to “balance the playing field” in an underhanded way. It’s not the legislature’s job to artificially improve their election odds.

 

[Cylent1]

The anitFederalist, AKA the democrats today started it and were finishing it!
ENOUGH FUCKING SAID!!!

 

[Foxi4]

The anitFederalist, AKA the democrats today started it and were finishing it!
ENOUGH FUCKING SAID!!!

In all fairness, this goofy map was drawn by a Republican-led legislature. Under coercion of a federal judge, mind, but a Republican legislature all the same. Not sure why Democrat supporters are bending over backwards trying to defend it when the legislature can obviously come up with something better than this.

 

[Cylent1]

In all fairness, this goofy map was drawn by a Republican-led legislature. Under coercion of a federal judge, mind, but a Republican legislature all the same. Not sure why Democrat supporters are bending over backwards trying to defend it when the legislature can obviously come up with something better than this.

"Under coercion of a democrat bide admin federal judge"! You forgot most of that part!

 

[Foxi4]

"Under coercion of a democrat bide admin federal judge"! You forgot most of that part!

The judge didn’t draw the map, merely ordered the map to be re-drawn. The legislature is equally, if not more, at fault. The Republican side of the aisle also bears responsibility here. I’m not going to blame the Democrats for something Republicans drew, even if they didn’t draw it of their own volition. A crap map is crap regardless of who drew it.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

That’s not quite right. The “line” was created as a second “black majority” district to comply with a federal judge’s order from 2022. The ruling is not a response to “an attempt to fix it”, it’s Cleo Fields’ current district. You might be referring to the previous map which also ended up in the trash, on the exact opposite grounds - insufficient representation.

Okay, so you're also not happy with the current map. Do you think this ruling improves the situation by letting them redraw it again, without these pesky restrictions about equal representation?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

"Under coercion of a democrat bide admin federal judge"! You forgot most of that part!

Completely false.

 

[Foxi4]

Okay, so you're also not happy with the current map. Do you think this ruling improves the situation by letting them redraw it again, without these pesky restrictions about equal representation?

No restrictions were removed by the ruling. The SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of the VRA, only on the validity of the map, citing that racial distribution cannot be the main reasoning when drawing districts because it makes unintentional discrimination likely to occur. I quote Justice Alito:

“The Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race. [The court must decide] whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”

This question was answered today and the answer is “no”. Drawing districts based on race is political segregation.

“Increased use and capabilities of computers in drawing districts and creating” [should be able to provide an alternative map that] fully achieves all the State’s legitimate goals.”

Section 2 is still in place and is still a consideration when drawing maps, it was simply decided that this map is bad.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Section 2 is still in place and are still a consideration when drawing maps, it was simply decided that this map is bad

This is just not true, sorry. People far smarter than you and me combined, at least in US law, have explained why in satisfactory detail.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Another pivot due to a profound lack of an actual rebuttal. Strike three, you’re out - you’re not going to waste my time with “uhh, b-but the orange man”.

It's really not though.

You have neither credibility or ground on claiming racism when you support someone who claimed migrants were eating pets (in addition to numerous racial remarks preceding that one) and your pattern of dismissing a judge in both the sexual assault case and now dismissing the judge's claim on the districts being racist because in both instances, they go against your preferred narratives.

Its worth pointing this out because it really does mean a reasonable or productive discussion with you on this isn't going to happen no matter how many circles you try to talk about this with your gish galloping.

Again, the racist and pedophile adjacent Tempers here fool no one.

 

[Foxi4]

This is just not true, sorry. People far smarter than you and me combined, at least in US law, have explained why in satisfactory detail.

It’s not even a matter of opinion, Section 2 was not struck down.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/...s-down-redistricting-map-challenged-as-racia/

If anything, they redefined the scope of application.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

If anything, they redefined the scope of application.

Which means that they voided it of meaning while leaving it there AKA de facto struck down.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

No restrictions were removed by the ruling. The SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of the VRA, only on the validity of the map, citing that racial distribution cannot be the main reasoning when drawing districts because it makes unintentional discrimination likely to occur. I quote Justice Alito:

“The Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race. (The court must decide) whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”

This question was answered today and the answer is “no”. Drawing districts based on race is political segregation.

“Increased use and capabilities of computers in drawing districts and creating” (should be able to provide an alternative map that) fully achieves all the State’s legitimate goals.”

Section 2 is still in place and are still a consideration when drawing maps, it was simply decided that this map is bad.

So they didn't change the requirements to challenge something under Section 2? They only ruled on this specific map?

Strange, theres a lot of reporting to suggest otherwise. The case is about that map, sure, but the ruling affects everything. They rejected that map *by* redefining how Section 2 works, with some justices arguing that it shouldn't apply at all.

“This Court should never have interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ’an entitlement to roughly proportional representation,’” Justice Thomas wrote.

 

[Foxi4]

So they didn't change the requirements to challenge something under Section 2? They only ruled on this specific map?

Strange, theres a lot of reporting to suggest otherwise. The case is about that map, sure, but the ruling affects everything. They rejected that map *by* redefining how Section 2 works, with some justices arguing that it shouldn't apply at all.

You should read the opinion. The SCOTUS Blog link above gives a good breakdown of both sides of the argument. The whole thing breaks down to how you interpret the provisions of the section.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

You should read the opinion. The SCOTUS Blog link above gives a good breakdown of both sides of the argument. The whole thing breaks down to how you interpret the provisions of the section.

I suppose you're welcome to interpret it as only relating to this one map if you like, but nobody else is, certainly not the people writing the opinions.

 

[Foxi4]

I suppose you're welcome to interpret it as only relating to this one map if you like, but nobody else is, certainly not the people writing the opinions.

Neither are they saying that Section 2 was struck down, because it wasn’t. The SCOTUS defined its scope by interpreting it, that’s the court’s job. If they wanted to strike the provision down, they could’ve ruled it unconstitutional, but haven’t. They clarified how it should be interpreted in practical application.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Neither are they saying that Section 2 was struck down, because it wasn’t. The SCOTUS defined its scope by interpreting it, that’s the court’s job. If they wanted to strike the provision down, they could’ve ruled it unconstitutional, but haven’t. They clarified how it should be interpreted in practical application.

Yes, that is indeed what I've been talking about. It sounded like you weren't aware this went beyond that one map, but the "clarification" is in fact going to affect everywhere quite significantly.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, that is indeed what I've been talking about. It sounded like you weren't aware this went beyond that one map, but the "clarification" is in fact going to affect everywhere quite significantly.

You asked about challenge requirements. The reason why the map was rejected was because it was determined to be “fruit of a poisonous tree”, in a manner of speaking. The intent behind drawing it was wrong. Measuring representation in a district is all well and good, but you can’t draw a district with the express intent of getting to a certain number as your goal, that’s discriminatory. The decision clarifies that, not a single provision of the section changed, which isn’t surprising because the court is not a legislature and has no ability to legislate, only interpret or strike. If your question is “what if someone tries to draw a map based on race in the future?” then the answer is yes, that map will also be affected because legislatures are not supposed to do that.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

If your question is “what if someone tries to draw a map based on race in the future?” then the answer is yes, that map will also be affected because legislatures are not supposed to do that.

And it will be impossible to challenge because this decision requires you to prove intent. Very easy in this case, as a response to racial gerrymandering of course it was intended to address that.

But I doubt every future case where someone tries to pull a Lousiana and put all the black residents into a single district will be so kind as to leave a signed declaration of intent around. It was just a coincidence, or merely political, so all good.

 

[Foxi4]

And it will be impossible to challenge because this decision requires you to prove intent. Very easy in this case, as a response to racial gerrymandering of course it was intended to address that.

But I doubt every future case where someone tries to pull a Lousiana and put all the black residents into a single district will be so kind as to leave a signed declaration of intent around. It was just a coincidence, or merely political, so all good.

I don’t share your concerns - Louisiana’s map was contested *because* it featured a second majority black district that disregarded other relevant factors, the legislature denied the allegations that it was primarily based on race. The determination was made by looking at everything else, what matters is the totality of circumstances. First of all, why would anyone want to “put all the black residents in one district” if not to segregate? You can still measure the demographics of a proposed district to check the honesty of a proposal. Secondly, besides demographics, it’s fairly easy to gauge whether a district was drawn on reasonable grounds or not, there are specific characteristics a legislature has to keep in mind in the process. Contiguity, compactness and respect for existing subdivisions (you generally don’t split cities, counties etc.) come into play here in terms of geography. You also have to look at whether communities you’re putting together have mutual interests, or whether you’re splitting communities with such mutual interests apart. All of this was discussed throughout the thread. You don’t need express intent to measure any of these things.