I know what you’re trying to say, you’re just not saying it. You’re the one making the argument - go on ahead and make it. How am I required to support it for you? I don’t particularly care to research a different district just to prove that the court is “always right”, a claim I never even made (and in fact disagree with, they’ve made mistakes in the past) that you’re now pulling out of a magic hat. The closest thing I said was that they’re consistent because they have a history of ruling against race-based districts, and I’ve provided a bunch of cases that demonstrate it. There’s zero contradiction - why would I take anything other than a cursory glance at anything unrelated to the district discussed in this thread? You spent a whole lot of time asking a complete stranger on the Internet to do your homework, you do realise that, right? I’m eager to hear how what I’ve said in any way contradicts the guidelines laid out by Congress - I sure hope you’re not going to argue semantics on that one because it will make me audibly groan. I’m glad that you think my principles are fine and my heart is in the right place, I’ll take that. If you want to show me that what I’m saying is incorrect, present your case so that I have something salient to respond to or argue against, don’t expect me to argue both sides of a debate.
EDIT: Just to make you happy I *did* read what the SCOTUS has to say about both districts. Unsurprisingly, it’s exactly what I expected.
View attachment 571765
District 2 has historically been there and connects adjacent areas with relevant interests. The new proposed district selectively connected areas separated by *250 miles* to pick up “pockets of black voters” along the way. The wording here suggests that they’re in agreement with the lower court. No big surprise. Is there anything else you’d like me to look up on your behalf?
Alright, I can't force you to do the exact same analysis you did for 2024 as you did 2022. I can't even force you to categorically say you think the court is right here, though I figured that was implied given you're defending their position as equivalent to your own logic. If you suddenly don't want to say anything, that speaks for itself.
I'm aware you don't think the 2024 map is good, I appreciate the change looks weird because it is. It is an intentional border designed to hit that demographic.
All I'm asking is that you apply the same logic to 2022, because SCOTUS isn't. And all of a sudden you lose interest.
So far, the most I can pull from what you've said is:
1) vague implications that it totally follows the rules, you just can't go into further detail right now. Here's a link to the rules!
2) that it has "historically been there" which...no? Firstly "it used to be like that" isn't a good defence, but its not even true. Unless your threshold of "historically" is "since it happened".
I'm not gonna pretend like the previous map is some paragon of neutrality, but district 2 is at least compact and contiguous. And then, historically (the second to last update, which normally would be the most recent), it gets stretched over that way to pick up some more neighborhoods that would otherwise have a bit too much influence on other districts.
It's the same both times. 2024's weird line is larger, granted. Way more obvious, they had to work harder to create two majority-black districts instead of one.
But because all of this is incredibly subjective (this is why I keep asking about the spreadsheet that solves this, if only), SCOTUS can act like the majority black district added in 2024 is wrong because it was intentional while simultaneously acting like 2022's majority black district is fine.
I don't disagree 2024's is intentional, that used to be the point of section 2: to give a population of 33% roughly 33% voting power, 2/6 districts. Representative of the wider area while still using a district system.
That logic is certainly open for debate, the idea of "lets not even think about race" is good in principle. But if you're against it, as SCOTUS is, it should be applied equally.
And 2022's map is also artificial, but they say its fine. Much harder to prove the intent, after all, nobody said they were actively stretching it out to contain more black neighborhoods.
Applying the logic so unevenly shows this isn't really about being colourblind, it only matters when suddenly there are two Democrat-voting districts instead of one.
So, I appreciate you stopping short of saying you agree with them. It would be hypocritical to say 2024's is bad but 2022's is fine, they both contain districts drawn based on race.
The only difference is the intent. That's the wiggle room they're using, and they are using it to say that making black voting power proportional to their population is a bad idea, but that tying it up into a single district is fine, even if both intents use the same actual strategy.
Again, I don't care if you agree its a bad idea to do that. Its definitely open to debate, its just very interesting that the outcome of that debate is being applied in this way. I do not blame you for thinking a system based on intent would be a bad one. For now, all I can say is that's what SCOTUS says.
Maybe we'll just have to wait and see what Lousiana's new map will look like. I'm sure it won't consider race at all - just politics, as God intended.
