Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
Supreme Court Curbs Use Of Race In Drawing Voting Districts
7,811 Views |
141 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by Redbrickbear
historian said:Mitch Blood Green said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Mitch Blood Green 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.
How is partisan districts ok? There are better was to draw districts especially with our technology advancement since 1964. We won't.
What is unspoken in these court decisions is the purpose of the VRA in 1964 hasn't changed one bit. States have a chance to do what "fair" for its citizens. They won't. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi will draw maps just like their grandparents did. And if it disenfranchises 40% of the voters? That's legal?
To be fair, take this argument to the northeast so that Rs get equal representation.
Take it anywhere you'd like. How's partisan districts ok?
Congress should not be choosing their voters. Voters should be choosing their representatives.
Congress does not draw the lines. The states fo that.
The same applies. States shouldn't be drawing lines that intentionally disenfranchise voters. It's one thing for you and me as neighbors to vote differently. That's competition. It's another thing for the states to carve up neighborhoods and communities for power. It's wrong regardless of who does it.
Mitch Blood Green said:historian said:Mitch Blood Green said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Mitch Blood Green 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.
How is partisan districts ok? There are better was to draw districts especially with our technology advancement since 1964. We won't.
What is unspoken in these court decisions is the purpose of the VRA in 1964 hasn't changed one bit. States have a chance to do what "fair" for its citizens. They won't. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi will draw maps just like their grandparents did. And if it disenfranchises 40% of the voters? That's legal?
To be fair, take this argument to the northeast so that Rs get equal representation.
Take it anywhere you'd like. How's partisan districts ok?
Congress should not be choosing their voters. Voters should be choosing their representatives.
Congress does not draw the lines. The states fo that.
The same applies. States shouldn't be drawing lines that intentionally disenfranchise voters. It's one thing for you and me as neighbors to vote differently. That's competition. It's another thing for the states to carve up neighborhoods and communities for power. It's wrong regardless of who does it.
The problem lies in this: no lines can be drawn that don't somehow, some way disenfranchise some voters The disenfranchisement has to be widespread and pretty solid to be solvable - like diluting practically all of a group. And how do you account for smaller parties like the Libertarian party? How can they not be diluted?
Personally, I think all committees working on district lines should never be allowed a closed session. There should be transcripts of each session provided to the public. No secret discussions.
I think that all lines should be drawn in compact shapes and using existing lines (rivers, highways, count lines, etc) as much as possible. I also believe the goal should be to have representation based on political reality as much as possible, not unconstitutional racial lines. That's where it gets difficult: if you draw the lines in a city along political lines it will also be racial to a large degree. For example, the east side of San Antonio is mostly black, the south side is mostly Latino, the south side of Dallas is black, same with Chicago, east side of Houston is black, etc. Even smaller cities like here in New Braunfels, there are distinct ethnic neighborhoods.
There will never be a perfect solution and there will always be someone unhappy. But the Dems have no room for complaining since they have been gerrymandering to disenfranchise voters literally for 200 years. This year, the radical fascists transformed Virginia from the fairest map to the least fair. And, as I said before, the new maps of Texas & Florida ard far more compact in shape and reflective of current political reality than California, Illinois, all of New England, & virtually all blue states. And they have been doing it for decades while it's largely new for red states.
We need smaller violins for the whining fascists!
There will never be a perfect solution and there will always be someone unhappy. But the Dems have no room for complaining since they have been gerrymandering to disenfranchise voters literally for 200 years. This year, the radical fascists transformed Virginia from the fairest map to the least fair. And, as I said before, the new maps of Texas & Florida ard far more compact in shape and reflective of current political reality than California, Illinois, all of New England, & virtually all blue states. And they have been doing it for decades while it's largely new for red states.
We need smaller violins for the whining fascists!
Hey, Bobby—what does your state do? 🤔 https://t.co/UBgFIoSLGt pic.twitter.com/RK0cTrtUwP
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 8, 2026
historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
I'm very happen to explain this to the national media - but here's EVERYTHING you need to known about the lies being spewed about "racist Republicans" in Tennessee and specifically Memphis. Dems claim the GOP is taking away their "black district." That's not true.
— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) May 8, 2026
In 2006,…
Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
We'll consider an example. Ready, set, GO!
Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
Sorry Sam, but your political daydreams do not rise to the level of "constitutional imperative".
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
canoso said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
We'll consider an example. Ready, set, GO!
We're considering one now.
Sam Lowry said:canoso said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
We'll consider an example. Ready, set, GO!
We're considering one now.
Spell them out. Can't wait to hear.
canoso said:Sam Lowry said:canoso said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
We'll consider an example. Ready, set, GO!
We're considering one now.
Spell them out. Can't wait to hear.
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (prohibits racial gerrymandering) vs. 15th Amendment right to vote (prohibits vote dilution based on race). In this case the gerrymander was used as a remedy for the vote dilution. SCOTUS held that no compelling interest justified the gerrymander because the vote dilution wasn't intentionally race-based. That was a rewriting of the law, IMO.
Fake lawyer gonna fake lawyer.
Oldbear83 said:
Fake lawyer gonna fake lawyer.
It's just a message board. No need to announce ready.
Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
Whatever conflicts Leftists might find in the constitution are probably not real. For example, equality under the law means equal opportunity not results. No Founding Father was a socialist. Another example: "separation of church and state" ard words that do NOT appear in the constitution.
The current discussion is another. Race based congressional districts are definitely NOT proscribed by the constitution, especially after the 14th amendment. The same is true of "birthright citizenship" as applied to illegal aliens.
Well, that's not how the conservative Court analyzed it.historian said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
Nothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
Whatever conflicts Leftists might find in the constitution are probably not real. For example, equality under the law means equal opportunity not results. No Founding Father was a socialist. Another example: "separation of church and state" ard words that do NOT appear in the constitution.
The current discussion is another. Race based congressional districts are definitely NOT proscribed by the constitution, especially after the 14th amendment. The same is true of "birthright citizenship" as applied to illegal aliens.
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:
Fake lawyer gonna fake lawyer.
It's just a message board. No need to announce ready.
Nice try Sam, but everyone already knows your schtick.
Because they analyzed it using the constitution and the law. This is what happens with honesty and integrity.
historian said:
Because they analyzed it using the constitution and the law. This is what happens with honesty and integrity.
They recognized the conflict and analyzed it using statutory interpretation (or rewriting, to be more precise).
No. They interpreted the issues using the plain meaning of the words in the constitution and the VRA. It's common sense, honesty, & integrity.
In the process, they overturned a previous court decision requiring racist gerrymandering. They corrected a racist error by during honest about what the constitution says.
The Left: "Some are more equal than others."
SCOTUS: equality means equality
In the process, they overturned a previous court decision requiring racist gerrymandering. They corrected a racist error by during honest about what the constitution says.
The Left: "Some are more equal than others."
SCOTUS: equality means equality
historian said:
No. They interpreted the issues using the plain meaning of the words in the constitution and the VRA. It's common sense, honesty, & integrity.
In the process, they overturned a previous court decision requiring racist gerrymandering. They corrected a racist error by during honest about what the constitution says.
The Left: "Some are more equal than others."
SCOTUS: equality means equality
"The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny. The Court's precedents have identified "only two compelling interests" that can satisfy strict scrutiny: "avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons," and "remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute." The question presented is whether compliance with 2 of the Voting Rights Act should be added to this very short list of compelling interests. The Court now holds that compliance with 2, as properly construed, can provide such an interest. A proper interpretation of 2 requires examining the statutory text to understand what it demands with respect to drawing legislative districts."
DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
Generally, Congressional representation should directionally reflect that, but it is impossible to get perfect (hence directionally). As stated on other threads, ideally do it via AI while keeping cities and common metro areas (loosely defined ideally intact).
Sorry, but the selective outrage from the LWNJs is one of the more eye-rolling of their usually selective outrage.
(For you guys that never took civics - the Constitution guarantees the right to vote but not to have your favored candidate win)
DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Sam Lowry said:canoso said:Sam Lowry said:canoso said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
yNothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
We'll consider an example. Ready, set, GO!
We're considering one now.
Spell them out. Can't wait to hear.
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (prohibits racial gerrymandering) vs. 15th Amendment right to vote (prohibits vote dilution based on race). In this case the gerrymander was used as a remedy for the vote dilution. SCOTUS held that no compelling interest justified the gerrymander because the vote dilution wasn't intentionally race-based. That was a rewriting of the law, IMO.
Classic non sequitur stemming from classic obtuseness. Your alleged conflict is nonexistent unless US citizens have both the right to vote and the right to a racially prejudiced outcome.
Harrison Bergeron said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
Generally, Congressional representation should directionally reflect that, but it is impossible to get perfect (hence directionally). As stated on other threads, ideally do it via AI while keeping cities and common metro areas (loosely defined ideally intact).
Sorry, but the selective outrage from the LWNJs is one of the more eye-rolling of their usually selective outrage.
(For you guys that never took civics - the Constitution guarantees the right to vote but not to have your favored candidate win)
The problem with that idea is that it is actually pretty hard for any facially neutral system to end up with proportionate representation because of concentration/dispersion of voters within any particularly jurisdiction.
Thus, the system becomes a structural advantage for which ever side is in control. It may not be gerrymandering, but it is gerrymandering, in effect.
California, for example, would be really hard to draw up in a facially neutral manner and still end up with similarly drawn districts and proportionately distributed representation.
Thus, I think the best way is to simply stop making district drawing important and just allocate at the state level.
It comes with some trade offs, but I think the benefits are worth the costs.
EatMoreSalmon said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Average house district is 750k. I get your point, but we aren't getting much local representation these days. By doing it at the state level, you at least get a fighting chance of reps at least advocating for state level issues. It would also make candidates on the fringes less viable. I actually like some of the fringy guys on the right, but a trade off I'm willing to make.
canoso said:Sam Lowry said:canoso said:Sam Lowry said:canoso said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
yNothing trumps the constitution. This is what the supremacy clause means: it is supreme.
What happens when constitutional imperatives conflict?
We'll consider an example. Ready, set, GO!
We're considering one now.
Spell them out. Can't wait to hear.
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (prohibits racial gerrymandering) vs. 15th Amendment right to vote (prohibits vote dilution based on race). In this case the gerrymander was used as a remedy for the vote dilution. SCOTUS held that no compelling interest justified the gerrymander because the vote dilution wasn't intentionally race-based. That was a rewriting of the law, IMO.
Classic non sequitur stemming from classic obtuseness. Your alleged conflict is nonexistent unless US citizens have both the right to vote and the right to a racially prejudiced outcome.
Read the opinion, unless you're afraid you can't defend the grounds on which it was actually decided.
DallasBear9902 said:EatMoreSalmon said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Average house district is 750k. I get your point, but we aren't getting much local representation these days. By doing it at the state level, you at least get a fighting chance of reps at least advocating for state level issues. It would also make candidates on the fringes less viable. I actually like some of the fringy guys on the right, but a trade off I'm willing to make.
We already have state-level representation in the Senate. Duplicating it in the House would defeat the purpose.
Sam Lowry said:DallasBear9902 said:EatMoreSalmon said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Average house district is 750k. I get your point, but we aren't getting much local representation these days. By doing it at the state level, you at least get a fighting chance of reps at least advocating for state level issues. It would also make candidates on the fringes less viable. I actually like some of the fringy guys on the right, but a trade off I'm willing to make.
We already have state-level representation in the Senate. Duplicating it in the House would defeat the purpose.
The purpose of the senate is to give smaller states disproportionate power to balance out the power of the more populous states. That works really well. Doing state level representation in HoR would preserve the power that was given to the more populous states in the lower chamber and preserve the senate's power.
Even if doing it this way sort of duplicates the senate, it is a worthy trade off to make drawing lines irrelevant and to move toward more competitive elections. As it stands, parties are clearly trying to pick their voters for HoR districts. Voters should pick the parties.
That's part of it, but without some kind of local representation you're effectively disenfranchising half the people in any given state. It would only contribute to more extremism than the current system (and I don't disagree that partisan gerrymandering already contributes to it).DallasBear9902 said:Sam Lowry said:DallasBear9902 said:EatMoreSalmon said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Average house district is 750k. I get your point, but we aren't getting much local representation these days. By doing it at the state level, you at least get a fighting chance of reps at least advocating for state level issues. It would also make candidates on the fringes less viable. I actually like some of the fringy guys on the right, but a trade off I'm willing to make.
We already have state-level representation in the Senate. Duplicating it in the House would defeat the purpose.
The purpose of the senate is to give smaller states disproportionate power to balance out the power of the more populous states. That works really well. Doing state level representation in HoR would preserve the power that was given to the more populous states in the lower chamber and preserve the senate's power.
Even if doing it this way sort of duplicates the senate, it is a worthy trade off to make drawing lines irrelevant and to move toward more competitive elections. As it stands, parties are clearly trying to pick their voters for HoR districts. Voters should pick the parties.
Sam Lowry said:That's part of it, but without some kind of local representation you're effectively disenfranchising half the people in any given state. It would only contribute to more extremism than the current system (and I don't disagree that partisan gerrymandering contributes to it).DallasBear9902 said:Sam Lowry said:DallasBear9902 said:EatMoreSalmon said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Average house district is 750k. I get your point, but we aren't getting much local representation these days. By doing it at the state level, you at least get a fighting chance of reps at least advocating for state level issues. It would also make candidates on the fringes less viable. I actually like some of the fringy guys on the right, but a trade off I'm willing to make.
We already have state-level representation in the Senate. Duplicating it in the House would defeat the purpose.
The purpose of the senate is to give smaller states disproportionate power to balance out the power of the more populous states. That works really well. Doing state level representation in HoR would preserve the power that was given to the more populous states in the lower chamber and preserve the senate's power.
Even if doing it this way sort of duplicates the senate, it is a worthy trade off to make drawing lines irrelevant and to move toward more competitive elections. As it stands, parties are clearly trying to pick their voters for HoR districts. Voters should pick the parties.
How do you figure anybody is disenfranchised? If Alabama votes 60/40 R/D, then allocate the seats that way. Sure as hell beats Mass going 40/60 R/D and ending up with a 9-0 delegation.
Also, if allocated at the state level, pork barrel spending becomes harder (or at least theoretically it is spent on state level initiatives). Nobody actually uses that stupid McKinney street car twice, but Fed dollars sure did help pay for it.
DallasBear9902 said:Sam Lowry said:That's part of it, but without some kind of local representation you're effectively disenfranchising half the people in any given state. It would only contribute to more extremism than the current system (and I don't disagree that partisan gerrymandering contributes to it).DallasBear9902 said:Sam Lowry said:DallasBear9902 said:EatMoreSalmon said:DallasBear9902 said:
Do proportional representation at the state level.
If Texas votes 58/42, split the seats that way. Round in favor of the party with more votes.
Would preserve the intent of VRA. Would push elections toward the middle rather than the extremes. Preserves the marginal greater value given to voters in smaller and rural states afraid of urban/bug city dominance.
You never again fight over weird lines. You lose some personal touch at district level.
If you are advocating the dropping of district lines and allocating party reps by percentage vote, you will lose all personal touch, particularly in larger states. No one will have their representative, unless they live in Wyoming.
Average house district is 750k. I get your point, but we aren't getting much local representation these days. By doing it at the state level, you at least get a fighting chance of reps at least advocating for state level issues. It would also make candidates on the fringes less viable. I actually like some of the fringy guys on the right, but a trade off I'm willing to make.
We already have state-level representation in the Senate. Duplicating it in the House would defeat the purpose.
The purpose of the senate is to give smaller states disproportionate power to balance out the power of the more populous states. That works really well. Doing state level representation in HoR would preserve the power that was given to the more populous states in the lower chamber and preserve the senate's power.
Even if doing it this way sort of duplicates the senate, it is a worthy trade off to make drawing lines irrelevant and to move toward more competitive elections. As it stands, parties are clearly trying to pick their voters for HoR districts. Voters should pick the parties.
How do you figure anybody is disenfranchised? If Alabama votes 60/40 R/D, then allocate the seats that way. Sure as hell beats Mass going 40/60 R/D and ending up with a 9-0 delegation.
Also, if allocated at the state level, pork barrel spending becomes harder (or at least theoretically it is spent on state level initiatives). Nobody actually uses that stupid McKinney street car twice, but Fed dollars sure did help pay for it.
The major problem is you are not voting for a representative in that system. You are strictly voting for a party. And who gets to choose who the representatives will be? The state legislature, or the parties? We had the State legislators choosing Senators for half our history and got rid of that.
The 17th amendment should be repealed. Same with the 16th (unrelated).
The funniest thing about the Virginia ruling, is that if it had gone the other way, all the people currently tearing the court apart would be reminding you that we're a nation of laws and that the ruling must be respected.
— Mike LaChance (@MikeLaChance33) May 9, 2026