Is there an argument for drawing lines on basis of race?

@vivify said
Then ignore the Dem/Republican aspect of it.

Simply put, the VRA ensures that blacks are represented at least proportionally to their population. If there's a black majority in area that could reasonably form a district, the VRA ensures that's done.

That's it. Nothing more.

Before the VRA, lawmakers could say "screw that, we're drawing maps to reduce their vote ...[text shortened]... The VRA simply prevents gerrymandering to weaken minorities.

Honestly: is that really so wrong?

That's not quite correct; it didn't ensure proportionality just ensured that legislators couldn't strive to prevent it by discriminatory means.

@vivify said
Then ignore the Dem/Republican aspect of it.

Simply put, the VRA ensures that blacks are represented at least proportionally to their population. If there's a black majority in area that could reasonably form a district, the VRA ensures that's done.

That's it. Nothing more.

Before the VRA, lawmakers could say "screw that, we're drawing maps to reduce their vote ...[text shortened]... The VRA simply prevents gerrymandering to weaken minorities.

Honestly: is that really so wrong?

Was it wrong in 1965? No, I don't think so. Something was needed to guarantee an equal opportunity to vote, stop the intentional disenfranchisement from poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. But what it has morphed into is this idea of a required share of political power predetermined by racial demographics, with no mechanism for it to ever return to just plain old 14th amendment style equal protection under the law. It's a poisonous idea that needs to ripped out by the roots. It's time to strive for a colorblind political system where every voter is just an individual with rights, and NOT a member of some racial voting bloc.

@Sleepyguy said
Was it wrong in 1965? No, I don't think so. Something was needed to guarantee an equal opportunity to vote, stop the intentional disenfranchisement from poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. But what it has morphed into is this idea of a required share of political power predetermined by racial demographics, with no mechanism for it to ever return to just plain old 14th amendme ...[text shortened]... em where every voter is just an individual with rights, and NOT a member of some racial voting bloc.

That's almost funny given the reality of what Southern States are doing now.

All completely "color blind" according to SG.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
"we don't need to abide by equal opportunity based on race'

are you fukin crazy...you just described racism to a tee

Noticing others are discriminating based on race and trying to remedy it is "racism" according to right wing bigots.

@no1marauder said
Noticing others are discriminating based on race and trying to remedy it is "racism" according to right wing bigots.

discriminating based on race is what the vra was put in place to stop...it morphed into discriminating based on race to get a preferred outcome for a particular party

@no1marauder said
That's almost funny given the reality of what Southern States are doing now.

All completely "color blind" according to SG.

undoing voting districts to give a single race more power over the other races is not funny...it is democracy

@no1marauder said
That's almost funny given the reality of what Southern States are doing now.

All completely "color blind" according to SG.

Well, if you think a state is drawing districts "motivated by discriminatory purpose", "intentionally to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race", rather than just using perfectly permissible "nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage," then I believe the requirement now is that you actually prove it rather than just calling everybody a racist when Democrats don't win.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
"we don't need to abide by equal opportunity based on race'

are you fukin crazy...you just described racism to a tee

You don't have to like it, but it's the literal language written in the Voting Rights Act that has been the law of the land for 60 years.

Ask your congressman to repeal the VRA, but it was reaffirmed in 2006 by a 10 to 1 margin.

@Sleepyguy said
Well, if you think a state is drawing districts "motivated by discriminatory purpose", "intentionally to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race", rather than just using perfectly permissible "nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage," then I believe the requirement now is that you actually prove it rather than just calling everybody a racist when Democrats don't win.

You believe wrong; once any plausible type of partisan advantage is shown by the proposed redistricting the inquiry ends.

So sayeth Alito.

You know perfectly well what is going on; right wing judges have had it in for the VRA for decades because it hampered racial discrimination that Southern States wanted to engage in. By gutting it even in the face of clear legislative intent by finding a principle of "color blindness" in Reconstruction era amendments meant to protect Blacks and if necessary provide remedies for discrimination, right wing judges have made a mockery of any idea of "original intent" (the Freedman's Bureau and many other measures enacted in that period would fail a "color blind" test).

@Mott-The-Hoople said
undoing voting districts to give a single race more power over the other races is not funny...it is democracy

Wow, admitting the entire purpose of what the Southern States are doing is to give "a single race more power over the other races" is pretty revealing, Mott.

And it ain't "democracy".

@Mott-The-Hoople said
show me the blacks that dont get to vote

Show me the whites that didn’t get to vote before this Supreme Court ruling.

@no1marauder said
You believe wrong; once any plausible type of partisan advantage is shown by the proposed redistricting the inquiry ends.

So sayeth Alito.

You know perfectly well what is going on; right wing judges have had it in for the VRA for decades because it hampered racial discrimination that Southern States wanted to engage in. By gutting it even in the face of clear legis ...[text shortened]... e Freedman's Bureau and many other measures enacted in that period would fail a "color blind" test).

"Right wing judges have had it in for the VRA for decades because it hampered racial discrimination that Southern States wanted to engage in. ."

That's all it can ever be, right? Just racism. Just right wing racist judges yearning to enable some good old racism. Nothing about Equal Protection or colorblindness in the law. Nothing about the VRA's unconstitutional requirement that districts be engineered based solely on skin color, or how that institutionalizes and ensures the continuation of racial discord in our politics. Nothing about how voting conditions have improved since 1965, or how that might weaken the Court's justification to keep treating states as second-class sovereigns. No principled arguments at all! Just racism racism racism.

It's like there is only one key on the whole piano the left can play so they just keep banging away on it forever. It's annoying, pathetic, and a lie.

@Sleepyguy said
"Right wing judges have had it in for the VRA for decades because it hampered racial discrimination that Southern States wanted to engage in. ."

That's all it can ever be, right? Just racism. Just right wing racist judges yearning to enable some good old racism. Nothing about Equal Protection or colorblindness in the law. Nothing about the VRA's unconstitutional r ...[text shortened]... the left can play so they just keep banging away on it forever. It's annoying, pathetic, and a lie.

SG: Nothing about the VRA's unconstitutional requirement that districts be engineered based solely on skin color,

Like right wing judges, you just make s**t up.

Read the actual VRA, Section 2 - I'm sure for the first time:

"“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting
or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or
applied by any State or political subdivision in a man
ner which results in a denial or abridgement of the
right of any citizen of the United States to vote on ac
count of race or color . . . as provided in subsection (b).
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if,
based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that
the political processes leading to nomination or election
in the State or political subdivision are not equally
open to participation by members of a class of citizens
protected by subsection (a) in that its members have
less opportunity than other members of the electorate
to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in
the State or political subdivision is one circumstance
which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in
this section establishes a right to have members of a
protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” 52 U. S. C. §10301."

The truth hurts I know which is why right wingers like yourself avoid that pain.

Judges like Alito are perfectly aware what the results of decisions like this will be. That it will enable racial discrimination that will aid the partisan chances of their favored party is the point not some incredible coincidence.

@Sleepyguy said
"Right wing judges have had it in for the VRA for decades because it hampered racial discrimination that Southern States wanted to engage in. ."

That's all it can ever be, right? Just racism. Just right wing racist judges yearning to enable some good old racism. Nothing about Equal Protection or colorblindness in the law. Nothing about the VRA's unconstitutional r ...[text shortened]... the left can play so they just keep banging away on it forever. It's annoying, pathetic, and a lie.

"No principled arguments at all"!!!!!

LMFAO! I guess you didn't bother to read this:

"By gutting it even in the face of clear legislative intent by finding a principle of "color blindness" in Reconstruction era amendments meant to protect Blacks and if necessary provide remedies for discrimination, right wing judges have made a mockery of any idea of "original intent" (the Freedman's Bureau and many other measures enacted in that period would fail a "color blind" test).'

Gee, those sure sound like "principled arguments" to me rather than your "stop hurting our feelings by saying we support racial discrimination just because we do".

@no1marauder said
SG: Nothing about the VRA's unconstitutional requirement that districts be engineered based solely on skin color,

Like right wing judges, you just make s**t up.

Read the actual VRA, Section 2 - I'm sure for the first time:

"“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting
or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or
applied by any State or po ...[text shortened]... t will aid the partisan chances of their favored party is the point not some incredible coincidence.

Yep there it is. A real gotcha:

"nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

Except that in practice the "totality of circumstances" Gingles gamut results in exactly that. Some Democrat wants to force the creation of a majority-minority district, and so must present a map showing the minority is "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district."

How do they do that? Why, they just sort voters by skin color and present the map. Then a judge forces the state to use the map to comply with the VRA, and presto you have a district created with race as the sole factor and to hell with the 14th amendment.