The United States Supreme Court has released its decision in Louisiana v Callais. To listen to Democrats, including Barack Obama who just argued that a wildly drawn partisan redistricting scheme in Virginia was “fair,” is to hear hysterics lying to whip partisans into a frenzy. A few days after a progressive activist, inflamed by leftwing rhetoric attempted a mass assassination of the President and his cabinet in Washington, perhaps Democrats should rein in their lies.
This is a surprising stat: "A majority of 58 Black members of Congress are from districts that have more white voters than Black voters." I'd like to know the data to back that up before I repeat it to others.
If only we could figure out a way the gerrymander the MAGAs out of the Republican Party. Maybe then it could represent conservative values and ideas again.
You really should not mention Trump in the same sentence as Reagan. There is simply no comparison. Reagan was a great American, while Trump is a traitor who tried to overturn our system of government. Reagan likely would have volunteered to serve on Trump’s firing squad.
You mean like under Bob Dole, the tax collector for the welfare state? Or Mitt Romney? George H.W. "kinder and gentler" Bush? How about John McCain, who refused to stand against Obamacare out of pique with Donald Trump? Or maybe you would prefer Lisa Murkowski, who is more Democrat than most Democrats?
You would be one of the very few. Ronald Reagan, if he were still with us, would not agree. Neither would Bill Buckley, Charles Krauthammer, and Joseph Sobran. Neither would the still living Pat Buchanan or Brit Hume. Perhaps you would be happier with the Democrats. Because you clearly are not a conservative.
I think Ronald Reagan would have wanted Trump executed for treason after his attempted insurrection. As for the others who are now departed, I don't think any of them would have been anything other than Never Trumpers. As for Brit Hume, no way he ever voted for Trump in a primary. Pat Buchanan probably did, but then he is and always has been an idiot. As for you thinking I am not a conservative, no true conservative is a Trumpkin, simply because, as you yourself has observed, Trump is not a conservative.
There was no insurrection. Only Democrats think that, and they really don't mean it. Other than Ronald Reagan, I listed people that I knew/know. They would prefer Donald Trump to the previous weak willed, spaghetti spined "Republicans". Brit Hume does not vote in primaries. And Pat Buchanan has forgotten more just today, than you will ever learn in a lifetime. He is a brilliant man. And a very nice, and kind man. Trump is not a conservative. But he is accomplishing conservative things. Something Republicans used to talk about doing, but somehow never got around to doing.
Doubt it. If they implied that to you, they were probably just trying to get rid of the nut job that was bugging them at the VA Republican meetings. Except for Pat, you and he are peas in a pod. As for Brit Hume, if he could vote in a primary, he would never have voted for Trump.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - Chief Justice John Roberts in the Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)
The political effect of redistricting pursuant to the Voting Rights Act is one of the least understood in politics. This decision eliminating majority-minority districts will quite likely reduce the number of blacks and hispanics in the federal and state legislatures. Perhaps counterintuitively, however, it will almost certainly lead to the election of more Democrats.
Don't believe me? Check the voting record of Republicans over the years on the renewal of the VRA. It has drawn strong Republican support because those in the know (both Republican and Democrat) have long been aware of its effect in electing fewer Democrats
You see, in order to make an electoral district safe for the election of a minority, the standard has been (if memory serves) to make a district at least 65% minority. In order to do that, we were ending up with districts where the percentage of Democrats, including white Democrats, was even higher than that. Packing an inordinate number of Democrats into a particular district removes them from the surrounding districts, making those other districts more likely to elect Republicans.
Again, both Democrats and Republicans have known this about the VRA (more minorities = fewer Democrats) forever; the Democratic Party having gone along with its own disempowerment out of fealty to its black voters. Assuming that they are Republicans, I would offer an old admonition to the morons who filed this case: "Be careful what you wish for."
Then all those pundits who are not associated with that left wing rag, The Atlantic, are wrong when they predict a loss of 20 Democrat House seats? Hmmmm.
By way of illustrating my point, take a look at any of the states (Texas, for example) that have redistricted in pursuit of more Republican seats. Without even looking, I'd bet they did so by taking Republican voters out of "safe" Republican districts and basically spreading them around. Similarly, the elimination of districts made safe for Democrats for the purpose of electing minorities should have the same effect.
I mean think about it. What better way to reduce a party's number of seats than by "packing" (the term of art used for this strategy) large numbers of its voters into a small number of districts? This will mean less of that for Democrats.
Thank you for your very informative article and enjoyed all the comments as well. I'm going to share the article with friends and family. Hopefully that will help better inform those who didn't understand the importance of this Supreme Court ruling.
Democrats have always been racist and bigoted. They continue to prove it over and over and over again. Thank goodness for the American voters who elected Republicans (including Trump…) who appointed our current Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court. If Dukakis, Gore, Edwards or HRC had won it never would’ve happened.
It is weird to watch progressive white saviors and black politicians declare through words and actions that blacks are too stupid, inept and incompetent to ever get elected unless the districts are set up in their favor. Even Andre Dickens has gotten in on the act. They completely ignore reality to play to a mindless base. 3,2,1 to white progressives start posting nonsense about the racist Supreme Court on social media.
The gerrymandering of states to create districts that will supposedly elect blacks is another concept designed, in effect, to elect Democrats. What is interesting, such as in NC, where the racial arguments have relentlessly been used and when successful to create new districts, it is liberal white women who have won Democratic primaries, even when all or virtually all their primary opponents were black. So much for electing blacks.
It is also noteworthy that that nominated black Republicans are often defeated not by black Democrats. Case in point…last year’s gubernatorial election in VA.
It is also noted that the misnamed Act applies to states in the west with large Indian populations.
One can only hope that states promptly remedy their racially gerrymandered districts.
There is too much money wrapped up in any race based law. Just about every Democratic minority politician has used race as their stepping stone to office. I think they look at the 7 deadly sins and see them as a guidebook rather than things to be avoided.
In the name of fairness, I wonder if AI could generate actually fair districts that truly represent each states voter rolls? Would a constitutional amendment be possible or necessary to institute it? As long as the AI is able to be made to truly be non-partisan, this seems like a fair solution. With that said, I would like to see a constitutional amendment forcing the removal of illegal immigrants from the census or at least not allowing them to be counted for purposes of representation or disbursement of any federal funds. If the states cannot get funding for them, you will see a collapse of sanctuary cities and states. I feel this would kill multiple birds with one stone.
Not sure about "AI" per se, with so much information being fed into it...probably too much. Perhaps a simpler computer program with the minimal information needed such as state, county and municipal populations and total number of districts to be drawn. Nothing about age, sex, political preference, race or anything else.
Here's another view on how partisan-based redistricting is affecting the country:
"It’s true that partisan redistricting alone does not create polarization; voters throughout the country have to a large extent “sorted” themselves into red and blue geographic areas. Social media further envelops people in their partisan bubbles.
But redistricting doesn’t counteract polarization either; rather, it reinforces it. In fact, David Wasserman and Ally Flinn, of The Cook Political Report, have found that redistricting explained 17 percent of the decline in competitive congressional districts between 1997 and 2017.
In a “safe” district, the general election becomes a formality and the only political competition occurs within the dominant party’s primary. Instead of being held accountable by a broad cross section of voters, House members answer only to the party base.
Over time, that creates a one-way ratchet in favor of extremists over moderates, because primaries are low-turnout affairs dominated by activists.
Increasing the number of House seats that are “safe” for a given state’s dominant party reduces the number of people for whom it’s worthwhile to participate in politics at all. After the California redistricting measure, election handicapper Kyle Kondik of Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates only 17 out of 435 congressional races as toss-ups. The other 418 are evenly split: 209 contests favor Democrats and 209 favor Republicans...
At the bottom of this slippery slope lies a country made up of 50 one-party states, represented in the Senate and House by increasingly extreme ideologues, with no incentive to compromise about anything.
Most ordinary Americans have no interest in such a future. The people who dominate our political parties, however, seem perfectly happy to risk it."
from "Redistricting Is Ruining Democracy" by Charles Lane
Could be but there has to be a better method. We have states now with 45/55 splits with the lesser number having zero representation which seems very unfair. There has to be a solution. It we are a split country, so be it, we need to work together to fix things. The problem is one side is bat crap crazy and impossible to work with as they dig their heels in on the most insane nonsense.
This is a surprising stat: "A majority of 58 Black members of Congress are from districts that have more white voters than Black voters." I'd like to know the data to back that up before I repeat it to others.
Great piece today “Radio Man” you’re on top of your game. 👍
If only we could figure out a way the gerrymander the MAGAs out of the Republican Party. Maybe then it could represent conservative values and ideas again.
By the way, the last President to use the phrase "Make America Great Again"? Ronald Wilson Reagan.
True, but Reagan knew what it really meant.
So does President Trump. The greatest President since Mr. Reagan.
You really should not mention Trump in the same sentence as Reagan. There is simply no comparison. Reagan was a great American, while Trump is a traitor who tried to overturn our system of government. Reagan likely would have volunteered to serve on Trump’s firing squad.
Stop lying. Because you are. And your inner Democrat is showing.
Not lying. Does the truth hurt, Glen?
You mean like under Bob Dole, the tax collector for the welfare state? Or Mitt Romney? George H.W. "kinder and gentler" Bush? How about John McCain, who refused to stand against Obamacare out of pique with Donald Trump? Or maybe you would prefer Lisa Murkowski, who is more Democrat than most Democrats?
Yes, all would be preferable to the populist/socialist Trump.
You would be one of the very few. Ronald Reagan, if he were still with us, would not agree. Neither would Bill Buckley, Charles Krauthammer, and Joseph Sobran. Neither would the still living Pat Buchanan or Brit Hume. Perhaps you would be happier with the Democrats. Because you clearly are not a conservative.
I think Ronald Reagan would have wanted Trump executed for treason after his attempted insurrection. As for the others who are now departed, I don't think any of them would have been anything other than Never Trumpers. As for Brit Hume, no way he ever voted for Trump in a primary. Pat Buchanan probably did, but then he is and always has been an idiot. As for you thinking I am not a conservative, no true conservative is a Trumpkin, simply because, as you yourself has observed, Trump is not a conservative.
There was no insurrection. Only Democrats think that, and they really don't mean it. Other than Ronald Reagan, I listed people that I knew/know. They would prefer Donald Trump to the previous weak willed, spaghetti spined "Republicans". Brit Hume does not vote in primaries. And Pat Buchanan has forgotten more just today, than you will ever learn in a lifetime. He is a brilliant man. And a very nice, and kind man. Trump is not a conservative. But he is accomplishing conservative things. Something Republicans used to talk about doing, but somehow never got around to doing.
Doubt it. If they implied that to you, they were probably just trying to get rid of the nut job that was bugging them at the VA Republican meetings. Except for Pat, you and he are peas in a pod. As for Brit Hume, if he could vote in a primary, he would never have voted for Trump.
Steve Martin said that the secret to comedy was "ti-MING!".
I wonder if SCOTUS timed the release of this ruling until after Virginia's vote.
I had always heard that the VRA prohibited drawing majority-minority districts, until someone said it required them.
One other hope is that the control of mainstream media devolves to those that will deconstruct its leftist bias.
What put on nightly by CNN is abominable, Scott Jennings notwithstandin.
This current media is a foot soldier for the Democratic Party and all of the value destruction their governance always brings.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - Chief Justice John Roberts in the Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)
I don't necessarily disagree with Roberts. However, I would add that the way to judicial activism is in overturning longstanding precedent.
Plessy v. Ferguson stood for almost 60 years until overturned by Brown v. Board.
It is not judicial activism to overturn erroneous precedent.
The political effect of redistricting pursuant to the Voting Rights Act is one of the least understood in politics. This decision eliminating majority-minority districts will quite likely reduce the number of blacks and hispanics in the federal and state legislatures. Perhaps counterintuitively, however, it will almost certainly lead to the election of more Democrats.
Don't believe me? Check the voting record of Republicans over the years on the renewal of the VRA. It has drawn strong Republican support because those in the know (both Republican and Democrat) have long been aware of its effect in electing fewer Democrats
You see, in order to make an electoral district safe for the election of a minority, the standard has been (if memory serves) to make a district at least 65% minority. In order to do that, we were ending up with districts where the percentage of Democrats, including white Democrats, was even higher than that. Packing an inordinate number of Democrats into a particular district removes them from the surrounding districts, making those other districts more likely to elect Republicans.
Again, both Democrats and Republicans have known this about the VRA (more minorities = fewer Democrats) forever; the Democratic Party having gone along with its own disempowerment out of fealty to its black voters. Assuming that they are Republicans, I would offer an old admonition to the morons who filed this case: "Be careful what you wish for."
How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities - The Atlantic https://share.google/UHrWFaudiLkcqHdvH
Then all those pundits who are not associated with that left wing rag, The Atlantic, are wrong when they predict a loss of 20 Democrat House seats? Hmmmm.
Yes, I believe so.
By way of illustrating my point, take a look at any of the states (Texas, for example) that have redistricted in pursuit of more Republican seats. Without even looking, I'd bet they did so by taking Republican voters out of "safe" Republican districts and basically spreading them around. Similarly, the elimination of districts made safe for Democrats for the purpose of electing minorities should have the same effect.
I mean think about it. What better way to reduce a party's number of seats than by "packing" (the term of art used for this strategy) large numbers of its voters into a small number of districts? This will mean less of that for Democrats.
Gee. Everyone else is wrong. But you and The Atlantic are right. Wow. Well, we shall see.
Bravo Erick!!
I hope to live long enough to see that party profoundly altered into the dustbin of history.
Thank you for your very informative article and enjoyed all the comments as well. I'm going to share the article with friends and family. Hopefully that will help better inform those who didn't understand the importance of this Supreme Court ruling.
Democrats have always been racist and bigoted. They continue to prove it over and over and over again. Thank goodness for the American voters who elected Republicans (including Trump…) who appointed our current Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court. If Dukakis, Gore, Edwards or HRC had won it never would’ve happened.
It is weird to watch progressive white saviors and black politicians declare through words and actions that blacks are too stupid, inept and incompetent to ever get elected unless the districts are set up in their favor. Even Andre Dickens has gotten in on the act. They completely ignore reality to play to a mindless base. 3,2,1 to white progressives start posting nonsense about the racist Supreme Court on social media.
The gerrymandering of states to create districts that will supposedly elect blacks is another concept designed, in effect, to elect Democrats. What is interesting, such as in NC, where the racial arguments have relentlessly been used and when successful to create new districts, it is liberal white women who have won Democratic primaries, even when all or virtually all their primary opponents were black. So much for electing blacks.
It is also noteworthy that that nominated black Republicans are often defeated not by black Democrats. Case in point…last year’s gubernatorial election in VA.
It is also noted that the misnamed Act applies to states in the west with large Indian populations.
One can only hope that states promptly remedy their racially gerrymandered districts.
Great piece. Very well stated.😄
There is too much money wrapped up in any race based law. Just about every Democratic minority politician has used race as their stepping stone to office. I think they look at the 7 deadly sins and see them as a guidebook rather than things to be avoided.
I'm with ya there.
We need to go back to the way districts were drawn pre 1960. Where population wasn’t a factor. It was pretty much equal division by land not pop.
The founding fathers warned us about straight majority population rule. That’s how the great compromise worked. The senate formed etc…
This has gotten out of hand and needs to be correct. Hopefully this ruling will change that.
In the name of fairness, I wonder if AI could generate actually fair districts that truly represent each states voter rolls? Would a constitutional amendment be possible or necessary to institute it? As long as the AI is able to be made to truly be non-partisan, this seems like a fair solution. With that said, I would like to see a constitutional amendment forcing the removal of illegal immigrants from the census or at least not allowing them to be counted for purposes of representation or disbursement of any federal funds. If the states cannot get funding for them, you will see a collapse of sanctuary cities and states. I feel this would kill multiple birds with one stone.
Not sure about "AI" per se, with so much information being fed into it...probably too much. Perhaps a simpler computer program with the minimal information needed such as state, county and municipal populations and total number of districts to be drawn. Nothing about age, sex, political preference, race or anything else.
I do believe party affiliation should be included to distribute the representation to align with voter.
Here's another view on how partisan-based redistricting is affecting the country:
"It’s true that partisan redistricting alone does not create polarization; voters throughout the country have to a large extent “sorted” themselves into red and blue geographic areas. Social media further envelops people in their partisan bubbles.
But redistricting doesn’t counteract polarization either; rather, it reinforces it. In fact, David Wasserman and Ally Flinn, of The Cook Political Report, have found that redistricting explained 17 percent of the decline in competitive congressional districts between 1997 and 2017.
In a “safe” district, the general election becomes a formality and the only political competition occurs within the dominant party’s primary. Instead of being held accountable by a broad cross section of voters, House members answer only to the party base.
Over time, that creates a one-way ratchet in favor of extremists over moderates, because primaries are low-turnout affairs dominated by activists.
Increasing the number of House seats that are “safe” for a given state’s dominant party reduces the number of people for whom it’s worthwhile to participate in politics at all. After the California redistricting measure, election handicapper Kyle Kondik of Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates only 17 out of 435 congressional races as toss-ups. The other 418 are evenly split: 209 contests favor Democrats and 209 favor Republicans...
At the bottom of this slippery slope lies a country made up of 50 one-party states, represented in the Senate and House by increasingly extreme ideologues, with no incentive to compromise about anything.
Most ordinary Americans have no interest in such a future. The people who dominate our political parties, however, seem perfectly happy to risk it."
from "Redistricting Is Ruining Democracy" by Charles Lane
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-redistricting-ruining-democracy
Could be but there has to be a better method. We have states now with 45/55 splits with the lesser number having zero representation which seems very unfair. There has to be a solution. It we are a split country, so be it, we need to work together to fix things. The problem is one side is bat crap crazy and impossible to work with as they dig their heels in on the most insane nonsense.
Good ideas, Bryan.
Grand idea!
Absolutely correct, the Democrats are racist at the core.