Be interested to see how the states fight or follow this ruling

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Be interested to see how the states fight or follow this ruling

---

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.

---

also gives arguement to Dems to have gerrymandered maps in red states redrawn..

They should have always been drawn based on geographics not demographics anyway.

---

Yes, they should have. But this Court has already said it won't do anything about partisan gerrymandering, which is why it approved the Texas map. Only increasing representation for minorities is verboten; any other arbitrary distinction is ok. That is why it is such a massive win for racists.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Be interested to see how the states fight or follow this ruling

---

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.

---

You got that from PutinGPT?

Do you support or oppose gerrymandering? (we know you will not answer)

---

Depends on whether it is Virginia-style gerrymandering or not.

whitetrash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Be interested to see how the states fight or follow this ruling

---

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.

---

You got that from PutinGPT?

Do you support or oppose gerrymandering? (we know you will not answer)

---

Depends on whether it is Virginia-style gerrymandering or not.

---

That's why he and other LWNJs will not give a straight yes / no answer ... it goes back to lack or principles.

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.

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.

---

Here’s a good exercise for the former president of the United States

Point to the “gerrymandered” map https://t.co/d0E8v4nb9n pic.twitter.com/KtGkB7vfFu

— Pub (@PubWanghaf) April 29, 2026

Potential Republican gerrymandering vs Democrat gerrymandering is hilarious. https://t.co/VEc1yhbV7j pic.twitter.com/qxbtSR9CLn

— Smirkley (@Smirkley) April 29, 2026

very funny that this absurd spaghetti gerrymander is only +4 worse than what they're already doing https://t.co/7hMBrThdaC

— Bennett's Phylactery (@extradeadjcb) April 29, 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

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.

4th and Inches 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

---

Easy for the GOP to say that lines should make sense on paper when theie strength is rural and Democrats' strength is urban. Anomalies in dividing up population dense areas (cities) are not apparent in a map of the state.

Proportional representation works when the parties occupy something close to the percentage of the votes they each receive. Variance from that standard can be the result of: (a) the electorate's changed political preference from the time of districting; (b) the fact that districting is a human exercise that cannot be perfectly accomplished; and (c) partisan gerrymandering. A & B are ok, C is not.

Overall, the country has generally been within sight of the goal. For instance over the last 84 years (42 election cycles) on only three occassions has the party receiving fewer nationwide votes for the House of Representatives controlled the House. (Link below). The problem with political gerrymandering is that increases the number of safe seats, to the benefit of activists in each party who enjoy more intense support among the political class than they do with ordinary citizens. The House becomes less responsive to the overall electorate in direct contravention of its Constitutuional reason for existence.

The Voting Rights Act attempted to ensure the right of minority voters to be heard in the electorate. The bill passed in response to a previous Supreme Court decision requiring intent as a prerequisite for a voting rights claim. Nothing in the text of the law requires intent for a Section 2 claim. The expressed intent of Congress in passig the VRA was to provide a legislative mechanism to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied to voting rights. Alito and the majority ignore all of that, along with their own decision in the Alabama case two years ago, to accomplish a transparently partisan goal.

Redbrickbear 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...

"White people" are by far the majrity in Texas and Californis becuase 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.

---

You don't seem that up set about decades of Democratic gerrymandering.

And you seem obsessed with racial profiling/percentages

Are you under the impression that Black voters are so different from White voters that they could not possibly be represented by someone from a different ethnic background?

---

You don't seem that up set about decades of Democratic gerrymandering.

Again, I have always been against partisan gerrymandering. My post below about the problem with gerrymandering is almost a verbatim repeat of something I have posted at least ten times before.

And you seem obsessed with racial profiling/percentages

Are you under the impression that Black voters are so different from White voters that they could not possibly be represented by someone from a different ethnic background?

You brought up the percentage thing and are apparently deflected from the fact that you did it incorrectly. Of course, African Americans can nd do vote for Republicans on an individual basis. As a group, however, they consistently and enthusisatically support the Democrat party. Which is why the GOP wants them to have less say as to who is in Congress.

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

---

Easy for the GOP to say that lines should make sense on paper when theie strength is rural and Democrats' strength is urban. Anomalies in dividing up population dense areas (cities) are not apparent in a map of the state.

Proportional representation works when the parties occupy something close to the percentage of the votes they each receive. Variance from that standard can be the result of: (a) the electorate's changed political preference from the time of districting; (b) the fact that districting is a human exercise that cannot be perfectly accomplished; and (c) partisan gerrymandering. A & B are ok, C is not.

Overall, the country has generally been within sight of the goal. For instance over the last 84 years (42 election cycles) on only three occassions has the party recevieing fewer nationwide votes for the House of Representatives controlled the House. (Link below). The problem with political gerrymandering is that increases the number of safe seats, to the benefit of activists in each party who enjoy more intense support among the political class than they do with ordinary citizens. The House becomes less responsive to the overall electorate in direct contravention of its Constitutuional reason for existence.

The Voting Rights Act attempted to ensure the right of minority voters to be heard in the electorate. The bill passed in response to a previous Supreme Court decision requiring intent as a prerequisite for a voting rights claim. Nothing in the text of the law requires intent for a Section 2 claim. The expressed intent of Congress in passig the VRA was to provide a legislative mechanism to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied to voting rights. Alito and the majority ignore all of that, along with their own decision in the Alabama case two years ago, to accomplish a transparently partisan goal.

---

thanks for letting me know that not every county has the same number of people uniformly..

When you draw lines that looks like those in the California and in the Illinois map listed earlier in this thread, it has little to do with dividing populations equally and everything to do with dividing populations to gain power.

Those lines are drawn so the urban center, which votes democrat, reaches out and grabs areas that would normally not vote Democrat. The example of the latest Virginia map is proof. That state votes 50-50 to 60-40 and the new map would've made it 10 to 1. That's a significant silencing of voices in representation right? There are other states that vote 60-40 to 70-30 and they have zero republican representatives.

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

---

Easy for the GOP to say that lines should make sense on paper when theie strength is rural and Democrats' strength is urban. Anomalies in dividing up population dense areas (cities) are not apparent in a map of the state.

Proportional representation works when the parties occupy something close to the percentage of the votes they each receive. Variance from that standard can be the result of: (a) the electorate's changed political preference from the time of districting; (b) the fact that districting is a human exercise that cannot be perfectly accomplished; and (c) partisan gerrymandering. A & B are ok, C is not.

Overall, the country has generally been within sight of the goal. For instance over the last 84 years (42 election cycles) on only three occassions has the party recevieing fewer nationwide votes for the House of Representatives controlled the House. (Link below). The problem with political gerrymandering is that increases the number of safe seats, to the benefit of activists in each party who enjoy more intense support among the political class than they do with ordinary citizens. The House becomes less responsive to the overall electorate in direct contravention of its Constitutuional reason for existence.

The Voting Rights Act attempted to ensure the right of minority voters to be heard in the electorate. The bill passed in response to a previous Supreme Court decision requiring intent as a prerequisite for a voting rights claim. Nothing in the text of the law requires intent for a Section 2 claim. The expressed intent of Congress in passig the VRA was to provide a legislative mechanism to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied to voting rights. Alito and the majority ignore all of that, along with their own decision in the Alabama case two years ago, to accomplish a transparently partisan goal.

---

thanks for letting me know that not every county has the same number of people uniformly..

When you draw lines that looks like those in the California and in the Illinois map listed earlier in this thread, it has little to do with dividing populations equally and everything to do with dividing populations to gain power.

Those lines are drawn so the urban center, which votes democrat, reaches out and grabs areas that would normally not vote Democrat. The example of the latest Virginia map is proof. That state votes 50-50 to 60-40 and the new map would've made it 10 to 1. That's a significant silencing of voices in representation right? There are other states that vote 60-40 to 70-30 and they have zero republican representatives.

---

I'm sure it was just an oversight by Frank. He'll be along any second to protest zero republican representation.


Any second










Should be coming now




Any































Second

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

---

Easy for the GOP to say that lines should make sense on paper when theie strength is rural and Democrats' strength is urban. Anomalies in dividing up population dense areas (cities) are not apparent in a map of the state.

Proportional representation works when the parties occupy something close to the percentage of the votes they each receive. Variance from that standard can be the result of: (a) the electorate's changed political preference from the time of districting; (b) the fact that districting is a human exercise that cannot be perfectly accomplished; and (c) partisan gerrymandering. A & B are ok, C is not.

Overall, the country has generally been within sight of the goal. For instance over the last 84 years (42 election cycles) on only three occassions has the party recevieing fewer nationwide votes for the House of Representatives controlled the House. (Link below). The problem with political gerrymandering is that increases the number of safe seats, to the benefit of activists in each party who enjoy more intense support among the political class than they do with ordinary citizens. The House becomes less responsive to the overall electorate in direct contravention of its Constitutuional reason for existence.

The Voting Rights Act attempted to ensure the right of minority voters to be heard in the electorate. The bill passed in response to a previous Supreme Court decision requiring intent as a prerequisite for a voting rights claim. Nothing in the text of the law requires intent for a Section 2 claim. The expressed intent of Congress in passig the VRA was to provide a legislative mechanism to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied to voting rights. Alito and the majority ignore all of that, along with their own decision in the Alabama case two years ago, to accomplish a transparently partisan goal.

---

thanks for letting me know that not every county has the same number of people uniformly..

When you draw lines that looks like those in the California and in the Illinois map listed earlier in this thread, it has little to do with dividing populations equally and everything to do with dividing populations to gain power.

Those lines are drawn so the urban center, which votes democrat, reaches out and grabs areas that would normally not vote Democrat. The example of the latest Virginia map is proof. That state votes 50-50 to 60-40 and the new map would've made it 10 to 1. That's a significant silencing of voices in representation right? There are other states that vote 60-40 to 70-30 and they have zero republican representatives.

---

How many tmes do I have to say that I disagree with, and have repeatedly disgreed with, partisan gerrymandering for the sake of advancing purely political interests? That includes California, Illinois, Virginia, and New York. It also includes Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Utah.

But lets remember who kicked off the latest round of ultra-partisan gerrymandering. Hint-it wasn't the Democrats.

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

---

Easy for the GOP to say that lines should make sense on paper when theie strength is rural and Democrats' strength is urban. Anomalies in dividing up population dense areas (cities) are not apparent in a map of the state.

Proportional representation works when the parties occupy something close to the percentage of the votes they each receive. Variance from that standard can be the result of: (a) the electorate's changed political preference from the time of districting; (b) the fact that districting is a human exercise that cannot be perfectly accomplished; and (c) partisan gerrymandering. A & B are ok, C is not.

Overall, the country has generally been within sight of the goal. For instance over the last 84 years (42 election cycles) on only three occassions has the party recevieing fewer nationwide votes for the House of Representatives controlled the House. (Link below). The problem with political gerrymandering is that increases the number of safe seats, to the benefit of activists in each party who enjoy more intense support among the political class than they do with ordinary citizens. The House becomes less responsive to the overall electorate in direct contravention of its Constitutuional reason for existence.

The Voting Rights Act attempted to ensure the right of minority voters to be heard in the electorate. The bill passed in response to a previous Supreme Court decision requiring intent as a prerequisite for a voting rights claim. Nothing in the text of the law requires intent for a Section 2 claim. The expressed intent of Congress in passig the VRA was to provide a legislative mechanism to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied to voting rights. Alito and the majority ignore all of that, along with their own decision in the Alabama case two years ago, to accomplish a transparently partisan goal.

---

thanks for letting me know that not every county has the same number of people uniformly..

When you draw lines that looks like those in the California and in the Illinois map listed earlier in this thread, it has little to do with dividing populations equally and everything to do with dividing populations to gain power.

Those lines are drawn so the urban center, which votes democrat, reaches out and grabs areas that would normally not vote Democrat. The example of the latest Virginia map is proof. That state votes 50-50 to 60-40 and the new map would've made it 10 to 1. That's a significant silencing of voices in representation right? There are other states that vote 60-40 to 70-30 and they have zero republican representatives.

---

How many tmes do I have to say that I disagree with, and have repeatedly disgreed with, partisan gerrymandering for the sake of advancing purely political interests? That includes California, Illinois, Virginia, and New York. It also includes Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Utah.

But let's remember who kicked off the latest round of ultra-partisan gerrymandering. Hint-it wasn't the Democrats.

---

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches 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.

---

the aim will be to reduce progressivism which happens to effect minorities who vote with that platform.

Its an effect, not a cause.. they arent trying to keep minorities from having a voice, they are trying to keep progressives from having a voice.

Still wrong to gerrymander, the VA map that had 5 districts converging in little slivers to disperse a large group of people who vote a certain way spread out to as many districts as possible is wrong. The Illinois and California maps listed in above posts show the same technique. If a red state did that, it is wrong. No populated area should have more than 2 districts in an area and the lines should look like they make sense on paper. Texas did a fairly good job at following county lines but got a bit janky in DFW and Houston area. It should be better drawn, more blocky like the rest of the state

---

Easy for the GOP to say that lines should make sense on paper when theie strength is rural and Democrats' strength is urban. Anomalies in dividing up population dense areas (cities) are not apparent in a map of the state.

Proportional representation works when the parties occupy something close to the percentage of the votes they each receive. Variance from that standard can be the result of: (a) the electorate's changed political preference from the time of districting; (b) the fact that districting is a human exercise that cannot be perfectly accomplished; and (c) partisan gerrymandering. A & B are ok, C is not.

Overall, the country has generally been within sight of the goal. For instance over the last 84 years (42 election cycles) on only three occassions has the party recevieing fewer nationwide votes for the House of Representatives controlled the House. (Link below). The problem with political gerrymandering is that increases the number of safe seats, to the benefit of activists in each party who enjoy more intense support among the political class than they do with ordinary citizens. The House becomes less responsive to the overall electorate in direct contravention of its Constitutuional reason for existence.

The Voting Rights Act attempted to ensure the right of minority voters to be heard in the electorate. The bill passed in response to a previous Supreme Court decision requiring intent as a prerequisite for a voting rights claim. Nothing in the text of the law requires intent for a Section 2 claim. The expressed intent of Congress in passig the VRA was to provide a legislative mechanism to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied to voting rights. Alito and the majority ignore all of that, along with their own decision in the Alabama case two years ago, to accomplish a transparently partisan goal.

---

thanks for letting me know that not every county has the same number of people uniformly..

When you draw lines that looks like those in the California and in the Illinois map listed earlier in this thread, it has little to do with dividing populations equally and everything to do with dividing populations to gain power.

Those lines are drawn so the urban center, which votes democrat, reaches out and grabs areas that would normally not vote Democrat. The example of the latest Virginia map is proof. That state votes 50-50 to 60-40 and the new map would've made it 10 to 1. That's a significant silencing of voices in representation right? There are other states that vote 60-40 to 70-30 and they have zero republican representatives.

---

How many tmes do I have to say that I disagree with, and have repeatedly disgreed with, partisan gerrymandering for the sake of advancing purely political interests? That includes California, Illinois, Virginia, and New York. It also includes Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Utah.

But let's remember who kicked off the latest round of ultra-partisan gerrymandering. Hint-it wasn't the Democrats.

---

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

---

Which is why Trump should have left well enough alone. Because of his insistence on GOP gerrymandering we will end up with roughly the same party split, but more safe seats where reps do not listen to 60-65% of their constituency.

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.

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.

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 the error made the other poster.

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