SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

[Xzi]

I do think that we will get hardline democrat that is democrat version of Trump and republicans aren't going to like it. It wouldn't be issue if republicans and democrats are fair with power sharing at first place.

Yeah we've already seen Republicans lose their shit when Democrats passed redistricting by popular vote in Virginia. Not surprising that the people who continue to support a child rapist hate the idea of consent, but they also just hate the idea of everybody playing by the same set of rules.

 

[Moe87]

Yeah we've already seen Republicans lose their shit when Democrats passed redistricting by popular vote in Virginia. Not surprising that the people who continue to support a child rapist hate the idea of consent, but they also just hate the idea of everybody playing by the same set of rules.

Yeah, that is going to left the republican with just one seat in Virginia.

That is Maryland at finest.

Texas and Florida are too gerrymandered so they cannot expand easily without compromise the neighboring republican districts, so if democrats have a best election year, republicans are going to find themselves with blue in gerrymandered districts.

 

[Foxi4]

There is no challenge that can meet the burden of proof that SCOTUS has set. Governors would have to explicitly declare that they're re-drawing districts to favor one party or another, one fiscal class or another, one race or another. Texas was as unsubtle about their motivations as it's ever gonna get, and SCOTUS still rubber stamped Abbott's bullshit.

I see no indication of that being true. You do not need an admission from the party responsible, you merely need to present evidence that the demographics of the district are not representative of the area it’s supposed to cover. That’s not a high bar, that’s one spreadsheet.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

I see no indication of that being true. You do not need an admission from the party responsible, you merely need to present evidence that the demographics of the district are not representative of the area it’s supposed to cover . That’s not a high bar, that’s one spreadsheet.

I could quote Thomas again about the intent bit, but that's already been done. Earlier you were saying actually thats no big deal, but it is definitely an indication. But anyway.

What do you mean by "demographics of the district are not representative of the area it’s supposed to cover"?

Like, objectively, a district is going to be representative of the area it covers. You draw a shape on a map, the shape contains everyone who lives there, perfectly representative of that shape.

If you mean the area in general, as in all the districts should be an average of the wider area, you're now talking about drawing districts to hit certain demographic targets. The SCOTUS explicitly ruled against that, both in their indication of how section 2 now works, and by saying that the original map that put the majority of black residents into a single district is totally fine.

So, like, what is actually your ideal approach here? What is the spreadsheet monitoring, over what area? Any actual attempt to resolve this runs into a problem sooner or later due to political gerrymandering being a totally legitimate reason, despite being heavily interlinked with race in some areas.

They're saying the original map was merely political ("woops, didn't mean to put all the black voters in one district, just coincidence") and the new map is racial (improving black voting representation can't be done without considering race). It is very much based on intent.

I'm guessing you're going for "each district should be an average of the wider area", which kind of defeats the entire point of districts and automatically favours the majority in the US system. But like, even that doesn't survive contact with the SCOTUS ruling. The 2022 map was far from average and they say its fine.

 

[Foxi4]

Earlier you were saying actually thats no big deal, but it is definitely an indication. But anyway.

I said that I see no indication of it being true and I stand by it. You are right, we have been over this and nothing has changed.

What do you mean by "demographics of the district are not representative of the area it’s supposed to cover"?

Like, objectively, a district is going to be representative of the area it covers. You draw a shape on a map, the shape contains everyone who lives there, perfectly representative of that shape.

Not if you slice right through a city, or between nearby cities that are deeply interconnected. If you were to create a new “Asian-majority” district in California by slicing off a chunk of San Francisco that just so happens to include Chinatown I imagine you could get to the coveted “majority-minority” figure, but doing so would be detrimental to the residents because they operate within San Francisco, putting them in a separate district is nonsensical. How exactly is it “representative” when it doesn’t represent the wider area? You’re cherry picking one neighbourhood to get to a magic number. It’s representative of the goofy shape you picked only and doesn’t reflect the experience of the citizens. This is another thing we’ve already covered.

I'm guessing you're going for "each district should be an average of the wider area", which kind of defeats the entire point of districts and automatically favours the majority in the US system.

My approach is that districts should cover a specific geographic area, they should be compact and contiguous, and the racial make-up of that area is completely irrelevant. I don’t see how that “favours” anyone - elected representatives represent all residents of their district regardless of colour.

 

[urherenow]

Lol only when it comes to favouring Republikkkans otherwise SC judges aren't even consistent with their own interviews.

"In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan (the "second wave" KKK) was a massive national movement with an estimated 2.5 to 4 million members. While the organization was not exclusively Democratic—attracting members from both major parties—it was overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and Southern/Midwestern, which in that era meant a significant portion, particularly in the South, were Democrats"

"Current estimates place Ku Klux Klan (KKK) membership in the United States between 3,000 and 8,000, spread across dozens of small, fractured groups."


So when there were millions, it was primarily Democrats. Now the high estimate is 8,000, Trump got 77 million votes. The math isn't mathing.

But here you are crying about "republiKKKans", including a Black Justice... saying that you can't draw maps based off of race.

And before you try pointing fingers, you should maybe take a hard look at the New England states. ALL OF THEM. 30~40% republican across the whole area, with ZERO seats in the house.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

*revisionist cope*

Yawn.

 

[SeltzerMist]

"In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan (the "second wave" KKK) was a massive national movement with an estimated 2.5 to 4 million members. While the organization was not exclusively Democratic—attracting members from both major parties—it was overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and Southern/Midwestern, which in that era meant a significant portion, particularly in the South, were Democrats"

Ok let's move forward in time to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. What exactly happened around this time?

I mean LMAO dude had to reference a situation from literally over a century ago as if this is the current status quo and it doesn't support their claim for the present.

Like he's actually struggling with the concept of time here. It's embarrassing, but not unexpected from someone who fell for Trump's MS-13 Photoshop a year or 2 ago.

 

[titan_tim]

"In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan (the "second wave" KKK) was a massive national movement with an estimated 2.5 to 4 million members. While the organization was not exclusively Democratic—attracting members from both major parties—it was overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and Southern/Midwestern, which in that era meant a significant portion, particularly in the South, were Democrats"

STILL clinging to that blatant fallacy? Like I said, in one ear and out the other with you, simp.

And before you try pointing fingers, you should maybe take a hard look at the New England states. ALL OF THEM. 30~40% republican across the whole area, with ZERO seats in the house.

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

Seems like the New England area is doing just fine for gerrymandering. Now look at the South! Wow!!!

Post automatically merged: May 6, 2026

It's embarrassing, but not unexpected from someone who fell for Trump's MS-13 Photoshop a year or 2 ago.

Wait. Did he actually think the Photoshop was the tattoo like Trump did? He needs to be careful of future scammers out there, because he'll fall for ANYTHING.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Wait. Did he actually think the Photoshop was the tattoo like Trump did? He needs to be careful of future scammers out there, because he'll fall for ANYTHING.

He did, he can't deny it.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Like I said, in one ear and out the other with you, simp.

That's because there's nothing groovy between them to hold the thoughts.

 

[Hanafuda]

Ok let's move forward in time to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. What exactly happened around this time?

ummm ... Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

ummm ... Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act?

Umm Democrats also proposed it, stooge, Kennedy was a democrat. the ones who filibustered it were all from southern states. But hey keep trying.

 

[SolidSonicTH]

I am very weary of every discussion turning into "anyone not part of the solution is part of the problem and I will not be sad if they got run over crossing the street tomorrow because it will be a net positive for society".

 

[Sir Tortoise]

I said that I see no indication of it being true and I stand by it. You are right, we have been over this and nothing has changed.
Not if you slice right through a city, or between nearby cities that are deeply interconnected. If you were to create a new “Asian-majority” district in California by slicing off a chunk of San Francisco that just so happens to include Chinatown I imagine you could get to the coveted “majority-minority” figure, but doing so would be detrimental to the residents because they operate within San Francisco, putting them in a separate district is nonsensical. How exactly is it “representative” when it doesn’t represent the wider area? You’re cherry picking one neighbourhood to get to a magic number. It’s representative of the goofy shape you picked only and doesn’t reflect the experience of the citizens. This is another thing we’ve already covered.
My approach is that districts should cover a specific geographic area, they should be compact and contiguous, and the racial make-up of that area is completely irrelevant. I don’t see how that “favours” anyone - elected representatives represent all residents of their district regardless of colour.

So, how is this proven with a spreadsheet? It sounds more like vibes about the "right" shape, like, it should look neat.

It is also still contradicted by SCOTUS's ruling, since I bet you can spot one district in this image that isn't "compact and contiguous". But SCOTUS say it's fine, so, even if your approach was the best ever, they're not using it.

3,4,5 sound to me like what you're thinking of. Now tell me how 2 taking chunks of 6 and literally bisecting 1 works with your logic. Because if it doesn't, SCOTUS are using different logic.

 

[Foxi4]

So, how is this proven with a spreadsheet? It sounds more like vibes about the "right" shape, like, it should look neat.

It should look neat if that’s the topology. It doesn’t always, sometimes cities are arranged into a line due to geographical boundaries, but that’s fairly rare, and you can tell with a glance when that’s the case.

It is also still contradicted by SCOTUS's ruling, since I bet you can spot one district in this image that isn't "compact and contiguous". But SCOTUS say it's fine, so, even if your approach was the best ever, they're not using it.

On this map? Not in isolation. I’d have to look at the actual map, followed by a population density map.

3,4,5 sound to me like what you're thinking of. Now tell me how 2 taking chunks of 6 and literally bisecting 1 works with your logic. Because if it doesn't, SCOTUS are using different logic.

See above. I’d have to look at the reasoning before making a judgement call myself.

 

[Hanafuda]

Umm Democrats also proposed it, stooge, Kennedy was a democrat. the ones who filibustered it were all from southern states. But hey keep trying.

Seltzer asked a question and got a factual reply. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed only because of overwhelming Republican support. The ratio of opposition to the Bill was MUCH higher among Democrats. But hey keep trying.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Not the first time I've need to post this for MAGA, probably not going to be the last time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

[Sir Tortoise]

It should look neat if that’s the topology. It doesn’t always, sometimes cities are arranged into a line due to geographical boundaries, but that’s fairly rare, and you can tell with a glance when that’s the case.
On this map? Not in isolation. I’d have to look at the actual map, followed by a population density map.
See above. I’d have to look at the reasoning before making a judgement call myself.

So based on topology, but also population density affects it? This is going to be an interesting spreadsheet.
Let me know if you do manage to take a look at the maps. It can be interesting to compare to previous versions of the map, I'm not aware of Lousiana gaining any new mountains recently.

Out of curiosity, previously you were able to identify districts as obviously cherrypicked due to their weird shape and majority-minority status. That trick doesn't work for this one? Why do you need more time to look at maps all of a sudden when you didn't before?

 

[Foxi4]

So based on topology, but also population density affects it? This is going to be an interesting spreadsheet.
Let me know if you do manage to take a look at the maps. It can be interesting to compare to previous versions of the map, I'm not aware of Lousiana gaining any new mountains recently.

Out of curiosity, previously you were able to identify districts as obviously cherrypicked due to their weird shape and majority-minority status. That trick doesn't work for this one? Why do you need more time to look at maps all of a sudden when you didn't before?

Trick? I posted a population density map alongside it earlier, and a standard map isn’t difficult to pull up, so it wasn’t necessary to post - anyone interested has easy access to those. I know you’re pretty desperate to get your gotcha moment here, but I’ve been consistent throughout this entire thread.

One of these maps is not like the other.

View attachment 570772 View attachment 570773

As for why population density matters, it helps you identify whether a district is intermingling rural areas and densely populated urban areas at a glance. Not always 100% accurate, but it’s a good proxy for deeper research of the area for the purposes of an argument on an online forum about video games. I’m not drawing a district here, that’s not my job.

If you’re *really* that interested in districting criteria, Congress has them on their website. You can find out *exactly* what they have to say about compactness, contiguity, communities of interest and everything else I’ve mentioned.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN11618

Technically those are not legal requirements on a federal level, but they’re strong suggestions that are generally followed by states which often sign them into law themselves. In my opinion they should become federal law so that the standard is uniform, until that happens they’re tackled case-by-case in the courts.