Racial Gerrymanders at the Supreme Court
Does the law command proportional representation by race?
Listen to article
Length4 minutesQueue
The Supreme Court isn’t above criticism, heaven knows, but it would be nice if the critics didn’t accuse the Court of judgments it hasn’t made. A case in point is the hyperventilating over the Court’s 5-4 ruling Monday that stayed a lower-court order requiring Alabama’s Congressional map to be redrawn in a few weeks (Merrill v. Milligan ). The ruling did not rewrite the Voting Rights Act.
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Mike Pence, Donald Trump and Jan. 6
00:001xSUBSCRIBE
Section 2 of the VRA bars voting practices or procedures that discriminate by race. This seems clear enough: Don’t racially gerrymander. The Court, however, interpreted Section 2 in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) to essentially require legislatures to maximize majority-minority districts. In a Catch 22, later Court decisions have forbidden legislatures from weighing race too heavily in redistricting.
Alabama’s new post-Census House map was ensnared in this trap. For three decades it has included one majority-minority district. Yet liberal groups contend that the GOP Legislature could have drawn a second in this latest round of redistricting. They say blacks make up 27% of the state population but only get to elect their “candidate of choice” in one of seven Congressional seats.
To sum up their argument, black candidates can only win in districts where blacks make up a voter majority, and the new map must assure them proportional racial representation. A panel of three federal judges agreed and ordered the Legislature to redraw the map to include two majority-black districts in time for this spring’s primaries.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day’s Opinion headlines.PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
Yet redoing the map would sow confusion before the primary, Alabama explained in its appeal to the High Court. Absentee voting begins March 30, and candidates need to know which district they are running in. The Court’s Purcell principle prohibits lower courts from enjoining state voting laws close to an election, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh explains in a concurrence staying the lower-court order.
“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” Justice Kavanaugh writes. “The stay will allow this Court to decide the merits in an orderly fashion—after full briefing, oral argument, and our usual extensive internal deliberations—and ensure that we do not have to decide the merits on the emergency docket. To reiterate: The Court’s stay order is not a decision on the merits.”
The three liberal Justices nonetheless rebuked their colleagues for using the Court’s “emergency docket” to issue a “ruling that ‘undermines Section 2’” and “a law this Court once knew to buttress all of American democracy.” Read between the lines in their dissent: They are chiding Chief Justice John Roberts for his Shelby County decision that eliminated the Voting Rights Act requirement that the Justice Department or federal court sign off on changes to maps and election laws. They hope this censure will make him tread more cautiously on voting-rights cases.
The Chief joined the liberals on the Alabama map because he believed the Court should defer to the lower court’s legal analysis. But he hinted in his dissent that Gingles may deserve to be revisited because it and its “progeny have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty regarding the nature and contours of a vote dilution claim.” Yes they have.
Reinstating the Alabama map respects the Court’s well-reasoned Purcell precedent while leaving its mistaken Gingles precedent for another day.
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the February 9, 2022, print edition as ‘Racial Gerrymanders in the Dock.’SHOW CONVERSATION(299)
- Octavio Lima1 day agoIt may be my mixed race immigrant privilege, but I never really understood the idea that a race can only feel represented in government if it elects people of that same race.Reply141
- AKArthur Knickerbocker1 day agoMr Lima – I continually wonder why these “activists”, who clearly, if not explicitly, assert what you state (that no one who is NOT of race “x” can represent people of race “X”) are never called out for the reverse – that is, if a white person (let’s face it, that’s who are the targets here) is incapable of representing someone who is NOT white, does it not also follow that someone who is NOT white is therefore incapable of representing white people (the majority in this country)? …See moreReply61
- CWCatherine Wright1 day agoThere is no such thing as race, or even mixed race, by the way. There is only the human race, and it’s high time we learned to live together. But I still appreciate your comment. C’s husb.Reply44
- AKArthur Knickerbocker1 day agoMr Lima – I continually wonder why these “activists”, who clearly, if not explicitly, assert what you state (that no one who is NOT of race “x” can represent people of race “X”) are never called out for the reverse – that is, if a white person (let’s face it, that’s who are the targets here) is incapable of representing someone who is NOT white, does it not also follow that someone who is NOT white is therefore incapable of representing white people (the majority in this country)? …See moreReply61
- This comment violated our policy.
- DEDavid Eyke1 day agoHispanic voters are leaning much more heavily right now towards Republicans than are blacks. Hispanics meet all of the income and history of discrimination tests under the Voting Rights Act, as do Indo-Americans etc. This means that carving out minority-majority districts for blacks who vote 90% Democrat disenfranchises Hispanics who vote 50-50. VRA Sect. 2 THEN mandates compensating minority-majority districts for Hispanics, Indo-Americans etc. until we have chaos. Gingles is WRONG. VRA Sect. 2 MANDATES that we simply draw voting rectangles across each state. VRA Sect. 2 prohibits anything that dilutes a mino…See moreReply9
- DTDavid Thomson1 day agoThis is forbidden, because it would remove the democrat’s advantage. Witness the redistricting in NY and CA.Reply1
- Harry Helland1 day ago1) Few states are easily broken into rectangles of equal area. 2) No states have sufficiently uniform density For example, using 5 rectangles to divide the 5 House districts in Oregon would result in 75% of the state’s population receiving only 40% of the representation in Congress. Though I might personally like the voting implications, it is at odds with the entire basis of the Constitution. …See moreReply
- DTDavid Thomson1 day agoThis is forbidden, because it would remove the democrat’s advantage. Witness the redistricting in NY and CA.Reply1
- DEDavid Eyke1 day agoAlfredo, the minority demographics of the country have changed so materially since Gingles was decided in 1986 due to immigration from across the globe that the decision needs to be reversed. It is no longer constitutional because minority-majority districts artificially created for only one minority group disenfranchises other minority groups. The other voters who are disenfranchised by having their vote weakened can include large Hispanic areas, Indo-American, and many many others. Minority-majority districts simply cannot stand. See the text of VRA Section 2 below: The extent to which mem…See moreReply7
- DEDavid Eyke1 day agoHispanic voters are leaning much more heavily right now towards Republicans than are blacks. Hispanics meet all of the income and history of discrimination tests under the Voting Rights Act, as do Indo-Americans etc. This means that carving out minority-majority districts for blacks who vote 90% Democrat disenfranchises Hispanics who vote 50-50. VRA Sect. 2 THEN mandates compensating minority-majority districts for Hispanics, Indo-Americans etc. until we have chaos. Gingles is WRONG. VRA Sect. 2 MANDATES that we simply draw voting rectangles across each state. VRA Sect. 2 prohibits anything that dilutes a mino…See moreReply9
- GJGary Jarmin1 day agoAlways wondered how segregating us politically (creating minority set-aside Districts), helps promote integration and racial harmony? Or maybe that’s the point: it doesn’t. Just makes it easier to use race as a political weapon.Reply61
- PWPatrick Wiesner1 day agoCatholics don’t get their own districts. Neither do farmers or left handlers. Likewise, neither whites, blacks, or Mexicans deserve or need a guaranteed representative of their own race. In some cases, forced minority representation isn’t even mathematically feasible. Here in Kansas, at most four percent of the population is black. We have four Congressional districts. In order to equalize the populations, about 850,000 residents must be allocated proportionately (Kansas has about 3.4 million persons living here). About 125,000 are black. Is Kansas required to create a majority black dis…See moreReply57
- TOTerry Overbey1 day agoYou could not have said it better. These cases are all a joke. This country is going down a very bad path. If we don’t find a way to get rid of Dem control of Congress and the White House, we are in big trouble. The federal bureaucracy is filled with Dems and leftists and it would take at least 8 years to start cleaning it out.Reply25
- CVChristopher Viola20 hours agoYou’re really comparing the experience of Left-handers, farmers, and Catholics to Black people in America??Reply1
- TOTerry Overbey1 day agoYou could not have said it better. These cases are all a joke. This country is going down a very bad path. If we don’t find a way to get rid of Dem control of Congress and the White House, we are in big trouble. The federal bureaucracy is filled with Dems and leftists and it would take at least 8 years to start cleaning it out.Reply25
- JMJOSEPH MICHAEL1 day agoThe best way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Interesting, isn’t it, that black Republican candidates have no trouble winning elections in districts that are majority white? Maybe the quality of the candidate matters more than the color of the skin?Reply43
- DTDavid Thomson1 day agoAnd yet, Tim Scott is not allowed to be a member of The Black Caucus. You can bet there will never be a White Caucus for the howls would be deafening. Well, other than “Sheets” Byrd of the KKK and Hillary’s mentor.Reply7
- CHCURTIS HEURING1 day ago…or the content of their character?Reply
- DTDavid Thomson1 day agoAnd yet, Tim Scott is not allowed to be a member of The Black Caucus. You can bet there will never be a White Caucus for the howls would be deafening. Well, other than “Sheets” Byrd of the KKK and Hillary’s mentor.Reply7
- RLRICK LUCK1 day agoJohn Roberts is an embarrassment to textualist jurisprudence – and- contextual common sense. His ‘doctrine of appeasement’ is at best tiresome and at worst, destructive to SCOTUS and, more importantly, the Constitution.Reply38
- WAWalter Altholz1 day agoUh, Remember the Constitution. That pesky document requires equal protection under the law especially as it relates to government actions. Why do we continue to diminish the most successful groups in favor of the least successful? Especially as that lack of success is not attributable to systemic racism, but a toxic culture nurtured by the Dems, Teachers Unions and “black community leaders” who benefit from an uneducated. malleable constituency. The argument that there should be some “safe districts” for any minority is not only repugnant but ludicrous. It not only violates common sense i.e…See moreReply27
- David Schmidt1 day agoI thought we ended segregation decades ago. Now it would appear that we are equal and just only if we separate districts into black and white. This is appalling to me. I would have hoped by now that we would have integrated society enough to not have to care if a black or a white is representing us. I may have been asleep but didn’t we elect a black president recently? Twice?Reply24
- JSJohn S1 day agoEven better, he was half Caucasian, which means both whites and blacks voted for him…but did whites only vote for the white half of the black half and vice versa? Tricky game…voting for the views/beliefs may be a better method? One can hope.Reply1
- MOMike OD1 day agoIn the nearly 232-year history of the US Senate there have only been 11 Black senators “This is appalling to me. I would have hoped by now that we would have integrated society” and the Senate?? Reply
- JSJohn S1 day agoEven better, he was half Caucasian, which means both whites and blacks voted for him…but did whites only vote for the white half of the black half and vice versa? Tricky game…voting for the views/beliefs may be a better method? One can hope.Reply1
- MSMichael Smith1 day agoLet’s be honest. Democrats believe that if you don’t vote for them, you are racist.Reply19
- JSJohn S1 day agoJoey said as much from his basement between naps during his vigorous campaign.Reply4
- GLGreg Langer1 day agoLet’s be honest. Repubs are so dishonest they can’t admit that if Blacks make up 27% of a state’s population and the state has 7 Congressional districts, it is ridiculously obvious that Repubs are clearly being racist when they carve up the state to make sure Blacks are a majority in only one Congressional district. There is no other possible explanation. Especially in a state that has a long, long, long history of vicious racism that existed well into the 20th century and which rears its ugly head repeatedly today.Reply3
- JSJohn S1 day agoJoey said as much from his basement between naps during his vigorous campaign.Reply4
- JRJames Rodden1 day agoI’ll never figure out how Obama, who obviously only got black votes, got elected twice. Very odd that.Reply13
- MMMarion D. Mahoney1 day agoHe received many votes from Democrats who were white and virtue signalers. I know many of these women. Their pride was in themselves for voting for him. Not so much for him.Reply6
- JMJames McFelea1 day agoEvidently, white people only voted for his white half. Strange how that works😀Reply5
- MMMarion D. Mahoney1 day agoHe received many votes from Democrats who were white and virtue signalers. I know many of these women. Their pride was in themselves for voting for him. Not so much for him.Reply6
- SGSteve Gokorsch1 day agoThe way to end discrimination on the basis of race it to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Justice Roberts. We REALLY need to stop this nonsense.Reply10
- JLJOSE LANUZA20 hours ago”To sum up their argument, black candidates can only win in districts where blacks make up a voter majority, and the new map must assure them proportional racial representation.” As a legal immigrant, naturalized citizen and member of a smaller minority than either blacks or latinos, I think it is ridiculous to insist that proper legislative representation is possible only if the candidate is of the same race as his or her constituents. That is NOT true, and smacks of the very racism MLK Jr fought and died to end….See moreReply10
- PMPaul Mcbride22 hours agoIf Blacks need gerrymandering to get black politicians (which is flat out racist to start with)….. Than how did Obama win? How did Trump or Biden get Black votes? How did Winsome Sears get white votes? How about Dr Ben Carson? This is a defacto racist scam- the rulers have decreed only black candidates can get black votes.Reply8
- GMgardner morris1 day agoA Solomon moment. Good arguments on both sides. But as other bloggers ably point out, why can’t a white congressman ably represent black citizens and vice versa? Gerrymandering districts to favor minorities is no different than colleges restricting some dorms to people of color. We seem to have gone full circle here..Separate but Equal was what started all of this..Reply8
- WFWayne Foreman1 day agoIt is racist to presume that blacks will always favor a black candidate. The flip side is to presume that whites will always favor a white candidate. Well, then how did Barack Obama get elected? Also, I live in Collier County, Florida and we elected Byron Donalds (a black man) as our Congressional Representative. He was elected despite their being only 7% blacks in the County.Reply7
- Tim Moran22 hours agoPerhaps the description of the makeup of the court should be revised. Instead of stating Roberts sided with the three liberals, how about the four liberals dissented from the (correct) majority.Reply7
- GBGEORGE BEVAN1 day agoJoe Biden’s promise to consider only judges with a certain skin color (and sex), for The Supreme Court has rendered The Court itself a victim of racial gerrymandering. One can only hope that after race and gender, competence and ability will at least rank third and fourth in importance for making this decision..Reply7
- CWC WeiL1 day agoThis Administration is bereft of competence and ability, qualities that should rank at the top of the list with integrity and commitment to service.Reply7
- JHJOE HNATEK1 day agoIf Biden was a “uniter” and says he’s going to nominate a black woman, I suggest he ask nicely and see if Janice Rogers Brown would come out of retirement. There ya go… black woman nominated. The Democrats’ heads would explode….See moreReply2
- CWC WeiL1 day agoThis Administration is bereft of competence and ability, qualities that should rank at the top of the list with integrity and commitment to service.Reply7
- Bill Fotsch1 day agoChief Justice Roberts once wisely said, “The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.” Sometimes I think he forgets what he said. Lord knows many who believe in racial preference don’t want to hear it either.Reply7
- JCJoseph Comfort1 day agoWhat do I think? I think liberals love racism, its their very favorite talking point and they will promote it every chance they get. If they perceive that its fading away, they’ll find a way to gin it up again. They always do.Reply6
- MJMarc Jones19 hours agoWhat do I think? I think making decisions based on skin color is bigotry. Government processes doing so is systematic racism. Using race to define electoral borders is nothing more than a new approach to separate but equal. This is Just Jim Crow with a paint job.Reply6
- CWC WeiL1 day agoWe haven’t read anything so sadly racist: To sum up their argument, black candidates can only win in districts where blacks make up a voter majority,…See moreReply6
- DSDavid Sanders23 hours agoOne would think the best way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating based on race.Reply6
- JKJef Kurfess22 hours agoWhere has the EB been? All over the country, voting districts have been forcibly gerrymandered on the basis of race in the name of the VRA. Liberals go so far as to argue that if a Black voter can’t be a voter in a district with boundaries drawn to ensure electing Black candidates, they have been “disenfranchised”. Google “packing” and “cracking”. There is a cottage industry of zealots who go around the country using the VRA to help draw voting district lines solely on the basis of the race/ethnicity of the voters. Here in California, the state’s own version of the VRA has even been used to f…See moreReply6
- ARArthur Ruckman1 day agoSo if racial gerrymandering is taboo and political gerrymandering is OK, how does the court decide if a racial group that consistently and overwhelmingly supports one political party was gerrymandered on the basis of politics or race? I know that jurists and legislators think themselves to have the wisdom of Solomon but all too often I see a carnage of cleaved babies in their wake.Reply5
- RFRich Foley1 day agoThe entire Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 and was supposed to last for five years. Somehow it is now in effect through 2031. Our Supreme Court Justices cannot keep approaching these issues as if it is 1965 in America with segregation having just ended, yet that is precisely what the liberals on the bench are so keen to do every time. If white voices can be diluted by gerrymandering in states such as Illinois, New York & Maryland, then it stands to reason that other people’s voices can be diluted in other states similarly. Any other interpretation would mean that whites are not subject t…See moreReply5
- RSROSA SIMMER1 day agoThere is a bipartisan cure to gerrymandering that was suggested ages ago: limit the total length of district boundaries to no more than 20 percent greater than the minimum required to divide the state into the required number of districts. Both parties go to extremes to gerrymander while hypocritically pointing at the other. Appointing “expert panels” to do the job is also nonsense, since they just focus on getting the right people on the panels.Reply5
- KGkaren graham1 day agoThe Constitution requires districts be determined by roughly equal numbers of voters, not number of miles. Congress members represent people, not acres.Reply
- FHF.J. Hoenemeyer1 day agoNice article over on City Journal as to how NY gamed the expert panel thing to eliminate four R seats . What about ‘one party state’ is not clear??Reply
- KGkaren graham1 day agoThe Constitution requires districts be determined by roughly equal numbers of voters, not number of miles. Congress members represent people, not acres.Reply
- Robert Griffin1 day ago“ The three liberal Justices nonetheless rebuked their colleagues…” Reliable leftist votes. As intended.Reply5
- Doug Eaton1 day agoMy view is this: if blacks and/or liberals want to elect (or select) on the basis of race and not merit that is their problem. For example, Biden is intent on selecting a black woman to the Supreme Court, rather than the most brilliant, intrepid, literate and elegant legal theorist available. There is always one person regardless of whether they are liberal or …See moreReply5
- RBRichard Buller1 day agoThe democrats used the Woman Card until it ran out of steam in 2016. How long until they wear out the Race Card argument? I don’t know if the writing is on the wall yet, but it’s been tagged a few times here recently….Reply5
- WWWolcott Wu1 day ago“To sum up their argument, black candidates can only win in districts where blacks make up a voter majority,…” I lived in Teaneck, NJ for years. A Euro community featuring a long-serving black mayor. Selection on the basis of race is for fools of all colors….See moreReply5
- SCSANGJOON CHA22 hours agolet’s have a quota in NBA. LBJ now must have an Asian center who is only 6-1 ft by the new rule.Reply5
- JBJay Bull20 hours agoDumb comment. The NBA is entertainment, not deciding public policy that affects the nation.If asian people worked as hard in after school classes as they did in basketball more of them would be in the league. Its your fault you have no athletic ability. Stop being passive aggressive…Reply
- JBJay Bull20 hours agoDumb comment. The NBA is entertainment, not deciding public policy that affects the nation.If asian people worked as hard in after school classes as they did in basketball more of them would be in the league. Its your fault you have no athletic ability. Stop being passive aggressive…Reply
- RRRichard Reich1 day agoObama and Holder used “disparate impact” to claim that a money lenders portfolio must reflect the local racial demographics, without it being established law. They extorted $Billions from banks and mortgage lenders using this FAKE theory. Just like CRT in education is FAKE. That’s what Democrats do — fake it.Reply5
- SSSteven S1 day agoIf African American Tim Scott can be elected to the United States Senate in the “white majority” state of South Carolina where the Civil War began, that’s redundant proof of the folly of mandating the creation of electoral districts composed of majorities of one or another race. Courts have no business mandating that any of the different races is entitled to proportional representation in Congress or even as municipal dog catcher. They shouldn’t presume that citizens of one race will only vote for candidates of the same race. Sen. Scott proves otherwise. That presumption is also steotypical t…See moreReply5
- TOTerry Overbey1 day agoChief Justice Roberts proves once again he’s not up to the task of standing up the liberal justices who only want to rule based on politics. Why is it that the Dem gerrymandered plans always seem to stand up and it’s only the GOP plans that come under scrutiny. We have a politicized judiciary thanks to too many Dem appointees.Reply4
- JBJackie Brooks1 day agoI encourage every reader here to look at last week’s NC Supreme Court decision on “gerrymandering by race “. The Dem majority judges ordered the NC legislature to redraw the maps even though the legislature deliberately left race out of the calculation. Those “unbiased” judges ruled even though race was not The Factor, everybody knows Blacks vote Democrat so by inference the legislature used race and the districts weren’t “fair”. This from a court that allowed the Democrat party that sanctioned Jim Crow to control NC for 114 years.Reply4
- Doug Eaton1 day ago \\They say blacks make up 27% of the state population but only get to elect their “candidate of choice” in one of seven Congressional seats.// I’m trying to get a handle on this. What if their “candidate of choice” is a white Republican? Do black Democrats have some kind of different political outlook than white Democrats? Are blacks monolithic in how they vote? Perhaps at one time they nearly were, but that is changing. This racially obsessive behavior, what Clinton used to call “bean-counting,” is mind-numbing in its fatuousness….See moreReply4
- MPMICHAELt PACKARD1 day agoUnfortunately, black women in Georgia were monolithic in voting for the bright but vicious Abrams at the 97%+ level. Also, the Senate runoff election saw the election of two black Senators thanks to more near monolithic voting by black women. Cori Bush said, “Black women did this—but this isn’t just “Black Girl Magic.” This is the result of pure organizing, labor, and love that Black women have poured into GA.” Perhaps the future might see some balance among black male voters, but there appears to be one half of one race in Georgia that only cares about itself….See moreReply
- MPMICHAELt PACKARD1 day agoUnfortunately, black women in Georgia were monolithic in voting for the bright but vicious Abrams at the 97%+ level. Also, the Senate runoff election saw the election of two black Senators thanks to more near monolithic voting by black women. Cori Bush said, “Black women did this—but this isn’t just “Black Girl Magic.” This is the result of pure organizing, labor, and love that Black women have poured into GA.” Perhaps the future might see some balance among black male voters, but there appears to be one half of one race in Georgia that only cares about itself….See moreReply
- CSCharles stahl1 day agoMust be a mistake. The picture showed whites waiting in line with blacks. Libs saying only blacks have to wait in line.Reply4
- BGBILL GOSSETT18 hours agoAnd on the other hand Biden is handing out paraphernalia so these same marginalized people can smoke drugs and Crack Cocaine.Reply3
- MHMatthew W. Hardey23 hours agoI am really tired of the implicit accusation contained in the redistricting process that all Americans are racist! This is most obvious in the attempt to force racial gerrymandering to achieve proportional representation. Nowhere in the Constitution is this called for, and the decision in Thornburg v. Gingles was objectively wrong and colors all subsequent discussion. It is past time to end all gerrymandering and be guided only by achieving as equal a population per district as is possible. It is unfair and racist to accuse all judges, senators and representatives at both state and federa…See moreReply3
- Robbie G17 hours agoI am waiting for the democrats to introduce some legislation with a wonderful sounding name like the “Fair, Objective, Scientific Bi-Partisan Democracy Protection and Redistricting Act” which criminalizes any party running against them.Reply3
- SSSTEVE SHORT1 day agoIf the state that started the Civil War that is racially divided with an 80/20 racial ratio in the ‘upstate’ and a 20/80 racial ratio in the ‘lowcountry’ can get along and govern itself why can’t the big cities and the Northern states do so? Is it an intelligence thing? Because y’all sure do depict souterners as stupid ignoramuses every chance you get.Reply3
- MCMike Mc Cowan22 hours agoHere is a creative suggestion: How about hiring the person based solely on qualifications.Reply3
- PPPam Pruyn11 hours agoThe whole concept of congressional districts needs to be thrown out. There should be an allotment of congress people allotted to each state by its population and if there are 10 congress seats, then the entire state should vote for 10. So let 20 of them run. You vote for 10, and of the 10 who are elected, they are assigned to a district to service, rotated intermittently. We are going to lose our democracy if we don’t stop this nonsense.Reply3
- William Wahl1 day agoWe should all get along. This business of identity politics is messing this idea up. You can’t vote in someone who is not quite black if you follow the Democrat’s reasoning.Reply3
- RMRichard Mott1 day ago“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” … unless, of course, they don’t sufficiently favor the Democratic party. Then Marc Elias will be called in to find a friendly Democrat judge to change the rules as needed to ensure the proper result.Reply3
- BSBilly Sithmanthy21 hours agoDEMS gerrymander by race ALL THE TIME.Reply3
- Stanley Klunder1 day agoWhen will we stop with the hyphenated designated of Americans ? Are people who have been born here still must be titles as XXXX Americans ? Are they really African Americans, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, etc . when generations have lived and been born in America ? Perhaps a naturalized American deserved this designation but do their children born in the US ? What happened to the “Melting Pot” ? Nothing melts if people identify as a race, previous county etc. This is just a way to segregate people. And so it goes with districting by race. I can be represented by any competent individual….See moreReply3
- CSChris Smither19 hours agoSo, are non-black candidates blocked from running in the “black majority district”? What happens if one actually wins there? or are these liberals saying that the district voters would automatically reject them because of their skin color? The condescension of these liberals towards the black community is appalling.Reply3
- Dale McConnaughay1 day agoGiven today’s political penchant for identity and victimization politics, we may be embarking upon an endless stream of divisively nonsensical racial gerrymandering.Reply2
- FHF.J. Hoenemeyer1 day agoObviously the answer is to divide the state by race . In that way the black engineer in Hunstville will have his issues and concerns aligned with the displaced field hand in Selma . Of course that might be a problem for the Indian M.D in B’ham whose interests are of no concern to either .Reply2
- JWJOHN WATSON1 day ago”Does the law command proportional representation by race?” If the answer is yes, we have some serious re-assignments to do. If Black Americans are roughly 14% of the population, how can we have more than one Black person on an NBA court at a time, and that’s rounding it up? What about the NFL, MLB, etc.? Will the NHL be affected?Reply2
- PTPeter Tom1 day agoYou’re asking the wrong question. The real question was the map drawn to give the dominant political party an unfair advantage by adjusting districts to disadvantage any potential opposition? Gerrymandering by it’s nature attacks the one person, one vote rule and discriminates against people on the basis of their beliefs. Before the age of computers, demographic databases and the ability to easily accumulate online data on people’s habits, gerrymandering only had the smell of rot. In the current age, it’s been weaponized by both parities to destroy the democratic system.Reply2
- PTPeter Tom1 day agoYou’re asking the wrong question. The real question was the map drawn to give the dominant political party an unfair advantage by adjusting districts to disadvantage any potential opposition? Gerrymandering by it’s nature attacks the one person, one vote rule and discriminates against people on the basis of their beliefs. Before the age of computers, demographic databases and the ability to easily accumulate online data on people’s habits, gerrymandering only had the smell of rot. In the current age, it’s been weaponized by both parities to destroy the democratic system.Reply2
- Mark Allen18 hours agoIf the Democrats want more Black voters, maybe they should stop aborting them in the camps…errr…I mean clinics.Reply2
- BSBILL SCHMALTZ22 hours agoGerrymandering is akin to sausage making… Probably something most people would find distasteful. However, it goes on with both sides gleefully taking a whack at it. However, trying to gerrymander based on race alone, and with an eye towards only one race really, Black, is absurd.
- It presupposes that all Blacks vote the same way and for the same candidates.
- In this case (Alabama) it harps on the fact that Black voters are about 27% of the total. How about nationwide, where they are about 12%?
- If held to 12% of the House districts nationwide for electing Representatives, the opinions and desires of the remaining 15% of the supposedly homogenous block of Black voters would be ignored.
- TRTony Rizzo1 day agoLeaves one with the hope that Gingles will indeed be revisited and rectified. Anyone want to guess which way the lockstep three would go on it?Reply2
- HHHoward Haas1 day agoIt seems to me we live in the era of racial fixation. There are few problems that aren’t blamed on racial discrimination by the left. Our national apology for slavery laid on the killing fields of the civil war. We enacted and support the ERA and have paid $Trillions to great society programs. Now we discriminate against Asians in university admissions. Time to help all in need not just non whites.Reply2
- Bryan Verha1 day agoI’m just distracted by the Hermes Paris ad model. Looks like one of my ex-gfs.Reply2
- RGRoberta Goodman1 day agoThose majority minority districts produce some highly problematic members of Congress (Ilhan Omar, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, et al) and the districts basically give them life tenure. I say, get rid of them. As soon as possible.Reply2
- JWJR Whyte1 day agoOnce again, race is the central issue under discussion in the news and in our politics.Reply2
Show More Comments
datruthchronicles 