Frank Galvin said:

---

Absolutely oppose gerrymandering. BTW, the Merriam Webster definition of gerrymandering is:

"the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections"

The idea that the GOP will not use this decision to gerrymander is preposterous. The aim and result will be to further reduce minority representation at all levels of power because minorities tend to vote Democrat.

---

I appreciate the direct answer. Democrats used gerrymandering to hold power for 100 years.

I would 100% support using computers to build district straight on population with some adjustment to keep metro areas of similar interest somewhat in tact ... for example, it would make sense for Waco-Temple-Killeen to be in a single district, Longview-Tyler, etc.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Absolutely oppose gerrymandering. BTW, the Merriam Webster definition of gerrymandering is:

"the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections"

The idea that the GOP will not use this decision to gerrymander is preposterous. The aim and result will be to further reduce minority representation at all levels of power because minorities tend to vote Democrat.

---

I appreciate the direct answer. Democrats used gerrymandering to hold power for 100 years.

I would 100% support using computers to build district straight on population with some adjustment to keep metro areas of similar interest somewhat in tact ... for example, it would make sense for Waco-Temple-Killeen to be in a single district, Longview-Tyler, etc.

---

Agree. The way we do it now is not working for anyone other than those already in office.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Absolutely oppose gerrymandering. BTW, the Merriam Webster definition of gerrymandering is:

"the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections"

The idea that the GOP will not use this decision to gerrymander is preposterous. The aim and result will be to further reduce minority representation at all levels of power because minorities tend to vote Democrat.

---

1. Democrats have been gerrymandering for decades

So you don't care about that…you just don't like it when Republicans do it

2. "Minorities" is a meaningless term. In California and Texas White people are a minority. And there are at least 9 States where that is true and more to follow.

So your thinking on that is outdated

3. Many groups that you think of as minorities are moving to the conservative end of the voting spectrum.

Hispanics in Texas have been moving toward the Republican Party for years

So in this case you are just talking about Black Americans being very loyal to the Democratic Party and not minorities in general

---

Both parties have been gerrymandering for decades and I have always been against it. The fact that you assume I am ok with Democrats gerrymandering is projection. I probably have written 20 posts where I identify gerrymandering as a whole as the primary problem with our current political status because of its propensity to elevate far left and far right candidates over centrists.

"White people" are by far the majority in Texas and Californis because Hispanics are white. You mean Anglos. And your comment proves my point-of Texas's currently occupied 36 congressional districts, 26 of those seats are filled by Anglos. That is 72% of the seats being filled by 40% of the population.

Check me after the mid-terms and tell me how conserviative Latino and Asian voting is. The buffoon in the White House is going to ruin that for you.

---

It is amazing how Hispanics are "Classified" by the left.

When it is good for the left Hispanics are people of color.

When it helps to push a narrative they are white.

When it helps the Democrats they are part of the minority population.

Now for this argument to help the left they are part of the majority white population.......

---

I classified them as does the census bureau and demgraphers everywhere. That doesn't mean they are not discriminated against because of thier ethnicity. And you are deflecting-the point of the post was to demonstrate the overrepresentation of Anglos, a primary goal of racists and white supremacists everywhere.

---

NO you did exactly what I said.

---

Does the census bureau and do demographers classify Hispanics as caucasian race with Hispanic ethnicity? Yes. Did I classify Hispanics as people of color? No. Do I argue that the GOP and Alito are busy trying to ensure overrepresentation of Anglos? Yes. Which is why I correctly pointed out he error made the other poster.

Sorry, you don't get to incorrectly define my argument.

---

Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

You are calling the Republicans racist and that they want only whites in government and then turning around and saying people with brown skin are white......


You said what you said and I absolutely DO GET TO tell you what it comes across as. Don't like it? Use different words, change your argument and admit you are contradicting yourself.

---

I said they want more Anglos in government. There is a difference. You seem incapable of understanding that basic fact.

---

NO you did NOT.

You said they want to make government white. Below is your exact wording.


"It is not just states. It is cities, counties, school districts, etc. The GOP will do everything in their power to make sure the halls of government are lily white. All the while hiding proclaiming that using race as a construct is evil.

It is a win-win for them. In states where they draw the maops they can do so with impugnity. In states where they don't draw the maps they can get them struck. John Roberts has achieved his goal in life."

Saying all anglo is a different thing than all white. Just as Hispanics are not white.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Lily White is pure white. Like Anglos.

---

no sorry white is white.

You cannot in one sentence claim white means anglo and then in the next claim white means Hispanic.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Absolutely oppose gerrymandering. BTW, the Merriam Webster definition of gerrymandering is:

"the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections"

The idea that the GOP will not use this decision to gerrymander is preposterous. The aim and result will be to further reduce minority representation at all levels of power because minorities tend to vote Democrat.

---

1. Democrats have been gerrymandering for decades

So you don't care about that…you just don't like it when Republicans do it

2. "Minorities" is a meaningless term. In California and Texas White people are a minority. And there are at least 9 States where that is true and more to follow.

So your thinking on that is outdated

3. Many groups that you think of as minorities are moving to the conservative end of the voting spectrum.

Hispanics in Texas have been moving toward the Republican Party for years

So in this case you are just talking about Black Americans being very loyal to the Democratic Party and not minorities in general

---

Both parties have been gerrymandering for decades and I have always been against it. The fact that you assume I am ok with Democrats gerrymandering is projection. I probably have written 20 posts where I identify gerrymandering as a whole as the primary problem with our current political status because of its propensity to elevate far left and far right candidates over centrists.

"White people" are by far the majority in Texas and Californis because Hispanics are white. You mean Anglos. And your comment proves my point-of Texas's currently occupied 36 congressional districts, 26 of those seats are filled by Anglos. That is 72% of the seats being filled by 40% of the population.

Check me after the mid-terms and tell me how conserviative Latino and Asian voting is. The buffoon in the White House is going to ruin that for you.

---

It is amazing how Hispanics are "Classified" by the left.

When it is good for the left Hispanics are people of color.

When it helps to push a narrative they are white.

When it helps the Democrats they are part of the minority population.

Now for this argument to help the left they are part of the majority white population.......

---

I classified them as does the census bureau and demgraphers everywhere. That doesn't mean they are not discriminated against because of thier ethnicity. And you are deflecting-the point of the post was to demonstrate the overrepresentation of Anglos, a primary goal of racists and white supremacists everywhere.

---

NO you did exactly what I said.

---

Does the census bureau and do demographers classify Hispanics as caucasian race with Hispanic ethnicity? Yes. Did I classify Hispanics as people of color? No. Do I argue that the GOP and Alito are busy trying to ensure overrepresentation of Anglos? Yes. Which is why I correctly pointed out he error made the other poster.

Sorry, you don't get to incorrectly define my argument.

---

Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

You are calling the Republicans racist and that they want only whites in government and then turning around and saying people with brown skin are white......


You said what you said and I absolutely DO GET TO tell you what it comes across as. Don't like it? Use different words, change your argument and admit you are contradicting yourself.

---

I said they want more Anglos in government. There is a difference. You seem incapable of understanding that basic fact.

---

we want people who can properly manage things, dont care if they are blue or red..

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Absolutely oppose gerrymandering. BTW, the Merriam Webster definition of gerrymandering is:

"the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections"

The idea that the GOP will not use this decision to gerrymander is preposterous. The aim and result will be to further reduce minority representation at all levels of power because minorities tend to vote Democrat.

---

1. Democrats have been gerrymandering for decades

So you don't care about that…you just don't like it when Republicans do it

2. "Minorities" is a meaningless term. In California and Texas White people are a minority. And there are at least 9 States where that is true and more to follow.

So your thinking on that is outdated

3. Many groups that you think of as minorities are moving to the conservative end of the voting spectrum.

Hispanics in Texas have been moving toward the Republican Party for years

So in this case you are just talking about Black Americans being very loyal to the Democratic Party and not minorities in general

---

Both parties have been gerrymandering for decades and I have always been against it. The fact that you assume I am ok with Democrats gerrymandering is projection. I probably have written 20 posts where I identify gerrymandering as a whole as the primary problem with our current political status because of its propensity to elevate far left and far right candidates over centrists.

"White people" are by far the majority in Texas and Californis because Hispanics are white. You mean Anglos. And your comment proves my point-of Texas's currently occupied 36 congressional districts, 26 of those seats are filled by Anglos. That is 72% of the seats being filled by 40% of the population.

Check me after the mid-terms and tell me how conserviative Latino and Asian voting is. The buffoon in the White House is going to ruin that for you.

---

It is amazing how Hispanics are "Classified" by the left.

When it is good for the left Hispanics are people of color.

When it helps to push a narrative they are white.

When it helps the Democrats they are part of the minority population.

---

Because to the Left the concept of race is a "political" concept

Its why they can move between arbitrary classifications like that....

And why they have no problem accusing a Black man who is conservative of being "not a real Black person" or a "Uncle Tom race traitor"

Such things are impossible if the Left did not simply only care about race as it relates to political matters only.

You are a "real Black person" only if you vote a certain way.

Back to the decision
It is a solid decision legally. Time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Back to the decision
It is a solid decision legally. Time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting

---

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to make those type of decisions. It is supposed to interpret the Constitutuion and statute. Its reading of the VRA in light of teh 14th Amendment is absurd.

---

VRA doesn't trump the Constitution. It's a sound decision

You know you did well when dems are using their big red buttons when something doesn't go their way

"JIM CROW 2.0" "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY" "WE ARE IN AN AUTHORITARIAN DICTATORSHIP"

So many lib tears

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Back to the decision
It is a solid decision legally. Time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting

---

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to make those type of decisions. It is supposed to interpret the Constitutuion and statute. Its reading of the VRA in light of teh 14th Amendment is absurd.

---

States that the SCt is supposed to interpret the Constitution and the statute.

Complains that the SCt interpreted the Constitution and the statute in making its decision.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Back to the decision
It is a solid decision legally. Time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting

---

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to make those type of decisions. It is supposed to interpret the Constitutuion and statute. Its reading of the VRA in light of teh 14th Amendment is absurd.

---

VRA doesn't trump the Constitution. It's a sound decision

---

It is an Alice in Wonderland deciscion. The Court found that creatng a majority-minority district violated the equal protection rights of non-African American voters even though it was necessary to comply with VRA Sec. 2. The defendants argued the map was drawn in its weird gerrymandered way to protect Republican incumbents, including Speaker Johnson. In other words, the crazy lines are not something they asked for or were necessary to satisfy VRA 2. Because it was the GOP that drew the map. SCOTUS said no, it has to be about race.

Yet, in every case where minorities' chances of representation are decreased by new maps (say in Texas) the Court says "not about race, just partisan politics and we are powerless to stop that). Even when there are admissions from the new map proponents that the voting power of minorities need to be diluted, as there was in the Texas case.

Complete, utter BS with not an ounce of logical consistency.

---

Y'all race cries are getting played out. Not nearly as many people are falling for it anymore

Frank Galvin said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Back to the decision
It is a solid decision legally. Time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting

---

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to make those type of decisions. It is supposed to interpret the Constitutuion and statute. Its reading of the VRA in light of teh 14th Amendment is absurd.

---

States that the SCt is supposed to interpret the Constitution and the statute.

Complains that the SCt interpreted the Constitution and the statute in making its decision.

---

I was responding to a post that said the decision was correct becuase it is "time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting" which is a policy matter reserved for Congress. The ridiculous attempt at intepretation makes clear SCOTUS is making policy based on the first argument and trying to hide it as intepretation.

---

Did you read the opinion?

"The parties . . . and their arguments . . . highlighted problems in the existing body of 2 case law [VRA]. One problem resulted from the rule that in racial gerrymandering cases, unlike other cases involving claims of racial discrimination, strict scrutiny is triggered only if race "predominated" in the State's decisionmaking process. Another problem stemmed from the long-unresolved question whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts. For over 30 years, the Court has simply assumed for the sake of argument that the answer is yes. These and other problems convinced the Court that the time had come to resolve whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting."

The Court is not making policy. It is applying the 15th Amendment to the VRA.

"The focus of 2 must be enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on intentional racial discrimination. When 2 of the Act is properly interpreted, it imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. Properly understood, 2 thus does not intrude on States' prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage. In short, 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race. Not only does this interpretation follow from the plain text of 2, but it is consistent with the limited authority that the Fifteenth Amendment confers.

Osodecentx said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Back to the decision
It is a solid decision legally. Time to put race behind us in college admissions & redistricting

---

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to make those type of decisions. It is supposed to interpret the Constitutuion and statute. Its reading of the VRA in light of teh 14th Amendment is absurd.

---

VRA doesn't trump the Constitution. It's a sound decision

---

It is an Alice in Wonderland deciscion. The Court found that creatng a majority-minority district violated the equal protection rights of non-African American voters even though it was necessary to comply with VRA Sec. 2. The defendants argued the map was drawn in its weird gerrymandered way to protect Republican incumbents, including Speaker Johnson. In other words, the crazy lines are not something they asked for or were necessary to satisfy VRA 2. Because it was the GOP that drew the map. SCOTUS said no, it has to be about race.

Yet, in every case where minorities' chances of representation are decreased by new maps (say in Texas) the Court says "not about race, just partisan politics and we are powerless to stop that). Even when there are admissions from the new map proponents that the voting power of minorities need to be diluted, as there was in the Texas case.

Complete, utter BS with not an ounce of logical consistency.

---

I disagree. You focus on results as viewed through the lens of race, & equality of results isn't in the Constitution

But as Justice Alito notes, much has changed since Jim Crow. The VRA stamped out discriminatory election practices. "Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana," he writes.

Alito said "the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race" except to remedy specific instances of past discrimination.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lousiana-v-callais-supreme-court-voting-rights-act-samuel-alito-4f060bdb?mod=editorials_article_pos5

---

Racist gerrymandering seems like something that should be universally opposed by Americans.

Jason Riley: "Liberals have no interest in a post-racial society. If you're progressive, if you're liberal, you want to keep race front and center of our national debates." pic.twitter.com/oPWbon2FJe

— Sowell Economics (@sowelleconomics) April 30, 2026

In Virginia, Democrats raised money and ran ads to NOT vote for the black woman for governor. They urged everyone to vote for the rich white woman.

Rich white woman beat the black woman. Black woman ran as a Republican.

They only use the race card when it suits them

They are despicable. True creatures.

"Supreme Court Curbs Use Of Race In Drawing Voting Districts"

Actually, the constitution and existing federal law curb (prohibit, actually) the use of race in drawing voting districts. The SC has merely reminded us, very correctly, of that reality.

According to Kagan, the Supreme Court can say there's an inherent constitutional right to abortion -- but it can't say explicit racial discrimination is unconstitutional.

There's no explanation for such a logical inconsistency other than partisanship. https://t.co/mtN2LeOYLo

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) May 1, 2026

Without Gavin trying to comically flip his state 48-4 none of this would have happened.

All because he wanted to get a slight poll bump for 2028, which has faded completely now. https://t.co/DP4iFWtOoB

— Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD (@TonerousHyus) May 1, 2026

Frank Galvin said:

---

Absolutely oppose gerrymandering. BTW, the Merriam Webster definition of gerrymandering is:

"the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections"

The idea that the GOP will not use this decision to gerrymander is preposterous. The aim and result will be to further reduce minority representation at all levels of power because minorities tend to vote Democrat.

---

You missed where the definition specifically notes fairness.

Race-based districts are inherently unfair on their face.

Go ahead and cry. under your hood no one will tell.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Lily White is pure white. Like Anglos.

---

Nope.

If we're gonna be making a big deal about super whiteness, you should be demanding more albino candidates.

What gets called "white" is a range from beige to pinkish.

Obsession with skin color is as stupid as obsession with hair or eye color. What we need are obsessions about character and constitutional literacy.