SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

[Dark_Ansem]

Ah so from "the concern isn't there" we are at "I don't share these concerns"

 

[Reualed]

Foxi4 concern trolling as usual.

Ignore the consequences and instead only worry about the only little thing he doesn't like about it.



I am just going to say my piece and then leave. Site is cooked.

Black voters prior to VRA being put in, often voted a specific way. States trying to keep their own (racist) power wouldn't like that and so they would condense or fracture to make sure they had as little power as possible.

Then even after it was put in, multiple states kept still racially gerrymandering, and so they were forced to go through a provisioning system introduced in section 5 for very specific southern states who had a repeated history of deliberately diluting black peoples right to vote, through poll tax and gerrymandering.

Supreme court gutted that section.

And now they are gutted section 2, which gave the law teeth, and allowed people of color to challenge it specifically because of racism and historical power.
Jim crow 2.0

"Right ruling"
Right. So when a massive set of every single person of color votes for the Democrat due to the blantent racist shit Republicans are doing.

Republicans just argue also that it's just political gerrymandering, no racial discrimination at all, and the supreme court also green lit it.

 

[Foxi4]

Ah so from "the concern isn't there" we are at "I don't share these concerns"

I’m not in charge of other people’s imaginary concerns. To me, the concern isn’t there, but you can be concerned about whatever you want. Per the SCOTUS decision, in gerrymandering cases scrutiny is triggered when race is found to be, I quote, “predominated in the State’s decision-making process”. This was the case in this instance. This has been the VRA standard since Miller v. Johnson (1995) which was eerily similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Johnson

Tl;dr, Georgia introduced a second black majority district which lacked organic structure (described as “geographical monstrosity”). The court ruled the redistricting plan to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protections Act.

The court noted that in some instances, "a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters based on race." Citing Shaw v. Reno, the majority concluded that strict scrutiny is required whenever race is the "overriding, predominant force" in the redistricting process.

Same same, but different. Shaw v. Reno itself was not dissimilar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno

The issue people have with Shaw v. Reno is that it doesn’t really enumerate any criteria for what constitutes a “bizarre shape”.

In any case, this isn’t the first time something like this has happened, and it’s not the last.

Foxi4 concern trolling as usual.

I’m explicitly *not* concerned.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

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 [...]

But that is not proof of intention. The demographics could be hilariously out of wack, as the original Louisiana map was, but good luck proving to a court what the mapmakers internal thought process was. Maybe its a coincidence or accident, oh well.
What you are describing is, fundamentally, the process by which the original map was challenged. Prove the map is unfair on its own design. That process under section 2 has been changed as a result, you now need design and intent.

You don’t need express intent to measure any of these things.

SCOTUS disagrees.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion, which said that states only violate the Voting Rights Act when "evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race."

So, yes. They didn't strike down the VRA. They just made it useless, unless you are really good at telepathy.

 

[Foxi4]

SCOTUS disagrees.

What do you think Alito means by “evidence” here? I assure you, he doesn’t mean a confession.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

What do you think Alito means by “evidence” here? I assure you, he doesn’t mean a confession.

You can assure me? Oh, thats okay then. I guess the telepathy is actually quite easy.

If it was anything similar to the way it used to work (what you are saying about judging a map's characteristics) they wouldn't have needed to change it.
For those of us who can't read Alito's mind, it has not yet been tested, so if you want we can wait until we see Lousiana's new map for an early indication. But, "evidence supports a strong inference", its clearly not trivial, or again why bother changing it.

So I'm tempted to interpret their opinion as written, to say you need strong evidence to convince a court of the mapper's intent. A signed confession is hyperbole, but there is no version of this that doesn't significantly raise the threshold to challenge these events. Therefore making them easier to get away with.
Only time will tell if it is "easier" or "impossible to fail".

 

[Foxi4]

You can assure me? Oh, thats okay then. I guess the telepathy is actually quite easy.

If it was anything similar to the way it used to work (what you are saying about judging a map's characteristics) they wouldn't have needed to change it.
For those of us who can't read Alito's mind, it has not yet been tested, so if you want we can wait until we see Lousiana's new map for an early indication. But, "evidence supports a strong inference", its clearly not trivial, or again why bother changing it.

So I'm tempted to interpret their opinion as written, to say you need strong evidence to convince a court of the mapper's intent. A signed confession is hyperbole, but there is no version of this that doesn't significantly raise the threshold to challenge these events. Therefore making them easier to get away with.
Only time will tell if it is "easier" or "impossible to fail".

Your concern over intent is silly and has no analog in the rest of the justice system. You can prove intent (mens rea) within the justice system without being explicitly told what the intent was.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent

To use an analogy from criminal law, if you couldn’t establish intent based on evidence you wouldn’t have three degrees of murder (third - unintentional and not premeditated, second - intentional and not premeditated, first - intentional and premeditated). You establish intent by examining the actions taken, and that has *always* been the case (see previous cases I cited), it’s not the case starting today.

 

[Xzi]

What do you think Alito means by “evidence” here? I assure you, he doesn’t mean a confession.

That's exactly what he means. It's the typical conservative double-standard: a white person's motives can only be racist if they explicitly declare them so, but any accusations of being anti-white will be treated with the utmost urgency and seriousness, regardless of the source or how utterly ridiculous they might be.

The court's majority has decided their loyalty lies with the dead confederacy, cementing their illegitimacy.

 

[Foxi4]

That's exactly what he means. It's the typical conservative double-standard: a white person's motives can only be racist if they explicitly declare them so, but any accusations of being anti-white will be treated with the utmost urgency and seriousness, regardless of how clearly ridiculous they might be.

Race being a predominant factor in redistricting has been illegal in America for nearly as long as I’ve been alive and intent was always proven on the basis of “strong evidence”, usually in the form geographical abnormalities, as opposed to a stated declaration of intent. I fail to see how Alito’s wording changes the status quo in this regard, it’s merely applied to the Voting Rights Act in this case which is, literally, more of the same.

The court's majority has decided their loyalty lies with the dead confederacy, cementing their illegitimacy.

Based on prior similar cases like Miller v. Johnson and Shaw v. Reno it seems to me that the court decided to uphold the status quo and reject racial segregation, again.

 

[The Catboy]

Release the Epstein files!

This still needs to happen. Everything has been a distraction from this

 

[Xzi]

Race being a predominant factor in redistricting has been illegal in America for nearly as long as I’ve been alive

And yet red states have been racially gerrymandered for longer than I've been alive. It's only very recently that courts have begun to strike down a significant number of those maps, and that's what this decision is meant to put a stop to. Hopefully their attempts to altogether eliminate blue districts by the thinnest of margins backfire, but with how many data points the surveillance state now gathers on every voter, their odds of putting the final nail in the coffin of American democracy are disturbingly high.

 

[Foxi4]

And yet red states have been racially gerrymandered for longer than I've been alive. It's only very recently that courts have begun to strike down a significant number of those maps, and that's what this decision is meant to put a stop to. Hopefully their attempts to altogether eliminate blue districts by the thinnest of margins backfire, but with how many data points the surveillance state now gathers on every voter, their odds of putting the final nail in the coffin of American democracy are disturbingly high.

Blue districts are protected by the same laws and same legal precedent as red ones. I’m against weird lines drawn across states to get a “desirable percentage” regardless of what race that percentage represents.

 

[Xzi]

Blue districts are protected by the same laws and same legal precedent as red ones. I’m against weird lines drawn across states to get a “desirable percentage” regardless of what race that percentage represents.

Well I'm glad you're siding with common sense, but that's exactly what this ruling has destroyed. The South is now projected to eliminate at least twelve more blue districts, and blue states will have no choice but to respond in kind. Good that the latter at least put it up for a vote, but that also makes them more likely to lose this chaotic free-for-all in the long run. The next admin will need to give SCOTUS the middle finger by establishing a federal gerrymandering ban and independent oversight.

 

[Foxi4]

Well I'm glad you're siding with common sense, but that's exactly what this ruling has destroyed. The South is now projected to eliminate at least twelve more blue districts, and blue states will have no choice but to respond in kind. Good that the latter at least put it up for a vote, but that also makes them more likely to lose this chaotic free-for-all in the long run. The next admin will need to give SCOTUS the middle finger by establishing a federal gerrymandering ban and independent oversight.

I’m not opposed to eliminating both blue and red districts that are abnormal in terms of their core characteristics. Who can forget Maryland’s “pterodactyl” that flew proudly over the U.S. until fairly recently?



I’m sure those just come up organically and aren’t either racist or partisan in nature. This kind of complaining about potential lost seats comes across as “every accusation is a confession”, the Democrats pull the exact same shenanigans to affect the vote.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Race being a predominant factor in redistricting has been illegal in America for nearly as long as I’ve been alive and intent was always proven on the basis of “strong evidence”, usually in the form geographical abnormalities, as opposed to a stated declaration of intent. I fail to see how Alito’s wording changes the status quo in this regard, it’s merely applied to the Voting Rights Act in this case which is, literally, more of the same.
Based on prior similar cases like Miller v. Johnson and Shaw v. Reno it seems to me that the court decided to uphold the status quo and reject racial segregation, again.

Okay, so you reckon theres no big change and they just redefined how Section 2 works, to how it already worked. We will just have to wait and see, I guess.

As for your other post, dude, the telepathy stuff was a joke. Of course you establish intent by looking at the actions. And as I said, there is no version of this where that additional requirement does not make it harder to prove.
I am quite interested in your claim that these cases have always proven intent, though. Maybe you should let the Supreme Court know that that was a pointless change? It's great if so.

Post automatically merged: May 2, 2026

I’m not opposed to eliminating both blue and red districts that are abnormal in terms of their core characteristics. Who can forget Maryland’s “pterodactyl” that flew proudly over the U.S. until fairly recently?

View attachment 570916

I’m sure those just come up organically and aren’t either racist or partisan in nature. This kind of complaining about potential lost seats comes across as “every accusation is a confession”, the Democrats pull the exact same shenanigans to affect the vote.

But can you prove it was intentionally done for those purposes? Maybe they just liked the pattern for its aesthetics.

 

[Foxi4]

Okay, so you reckon theres no big change and they just redefined how Section 2 works, to how it already worked. We will just have to wait and see, I guess.

As for your other post, dude, the telepathy stuff was a joke. Of course you establish intent by looking at the actions. And as I said, there is no version of this where that additional requirement does not make it harder to prove.
I am quite interested in your claim that these cases have always proven intent, though. Maybe you should let the Supreme Court know that that was a pointless change? It's great if so.

I’m well-aware that you’re joking around, we’ve spoken on political matters before. I describe this kind of discourse as half-joking, half-serious, and I’m a fan, but some things need to be clarified for the benefit of other readers. Louisiana v. Callais, the name of the case we’re discussing, has to do with compliance with the VRA. The question was whether race is, or isn’t, a compelling interest. I would argue that the state should *not* be in the business of racial segregation, whether the discrimination is affirmative or harmful, and presented my point of view in previous posts. I *don’t* believe this case makes racial gerrymandering “harder to prove”, I simply find the arguments used in favour of this hypothesis unconvincing. You are correct in saying that only time will tell what the long-term impact of the case will be - if it’s negative, the matter can be revisited for what, the fourth time? N-th time, who can even keep track at this point. America’s obsession with race is pathological for the average outside observer.

But can you prove it was intentionally done for those purposes? Maybe they just liked the pattern for its aesthetics.

If you promise to help, I propose we draft a suggestion to Congress. The Bald Eagle Act will guarantee each district is in the shape of an eagle for maximum freedom.

 

[Xzi]

I’m not opposed to eliminating both blue and red districts that are abnormal in terms of their core characteristics. Who can forget Maryland’s “pterodactyl” that flew proudly over the U.S. until fairly recently?

View attachment 570916

I’m sure those just come up organically and aren’t either racist or partisan in nature. This kind of complaining about potential lost seats comes across as “every accusation is a confession”, the Democrats pull the exact same shenanigans to affect the vote.

There's a reason Democrats in government have a reputation of being generally spineless, and it's because they generally are. Even in blue states Republicans have traditionally been the ones to draw these awkward maps, and Dems are fine with accepting whatever scraps are left for them, so long as the disadvantage isn't TOO obvious. This SCOTUS ruling paves the way for red states to eliminate blue districts altogether, or at best leave them with one each, which is why there's just now a noticeable uproar.

Again, red states will and have become gerrymandered by governor decree, whereas blue states will and have taken the issue to the ballot. The obvious subtext of every ruling from regressives on the court is that they want the law to protect but not bind Republicans, while binding and not protecting Democrats.

 

[Cylent1]

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.

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.

You sure as hell act like you know everything troll!
Your TDS has entered stage 4 at this point!

Post automatically merged: May 2, 2026

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

Enough of the alternative facts and join the real world.
But that involves getting out of your parents basement and get a job!

 

[DiscostewSM]

Your TDS has entered stage 4 at this point!

Pretty sad how nobody was talking about Trump here until this sloppy seconder jumped in crying "TDS". And they don't even see the irony.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Pretty sad how nobody was talking about Trump here until this sloppy seconder jumped in crying "TDS". And they don't even see the irony.

Irony is a prerogative of smart people and MAGAts have not been burdened with intelligence.