Writes Justin Jouvenal, in "Supreme Court seems split on Louisiana voting map, majority-Black districtsSeveral conservative justices were skeptical that the Voting Rights Act’s attempts to redress past discrimination can coexist with the Equal Protection Clause" (WaPo).
The legal arguments in the case center on the extent to which states can consider race in drawing legislative maps, a power they were granted as part of the Voting Rights Act in an attempt to address discriminatory electoral practices.
Such maps cannot, however, be explicit racial gerrymanders.
Whatever happened to implicit racism?
That's reassuring.
[T]he conservative justices appeared to disagree about whether the district’s shape was the result of racial considerations or politics, which could indicate there may not be enough votes to strike down the map. The court’s three liberals seemed inclined to allow the creation of the second Black-majority district.
Much of the argument at Monday’s hearing revolved around whether the new district — a line some conservatives described as a “squiggly” land mass that stretches from Baton Rouge to Shreveport — met those criteria.
“It’s a snake that runs from one end of the state to the other,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked an attorney for the plaintiffs. “I mean, how is that compact?"
The top-rated comment over there: "Would it kill you, WaPo, to show a map and how ridiculous this district looks? NY Times does not show a map either. The map tells the story. 225 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, with parts of the district being no more than a mile wide."
ADDED: I've looked at the map and, actually, I think the words make it seem worse than it looks. The important problem here is that political gerrymandering is left to the state legislatures and black people are thought of as Democrats.
Posts
63 comments:
The top-rated comment over there: "Would it kill you, WaPo, to show a map and how ridiculous this district looks? …”
That’s affirmative.
The initial goal of the gerrymander agreement was to fulfill a bargain made between black democrats and republicans who didn't at all mind having more black legislators if it yielded another one or two or three or four republicans overall when things washed out nationally.
Fewer Dems, more blacks - everybody inside this deal got what they wanted. As with other things that happened in the past 40 years, this is finally being addressed in the courts. Someday equal protection will actually mean what it says if we continue to make progress on this matter. You may insert something about grinding and the wheels of justice right about here if you like.
NY Times does not show a map either.
Herd mentality. That's the cue to normal Americans that we aren't part of the herd, we are the ones who want to SEE the map under discussion instead of (figuratively) walking all-around it in a debate over meaning. Let's actually see the thing and ignore the Leftists' feels for now.
A majority black district is a majority not very smart district. A public policy decision ought to account for that.
The Progressives sure do love their racial quota systems.
@mezzrow ... that's the CW and fair explanation of what happened but I think it gives much more foresight to the Stupid Party than they deserve. When majority-minority districts became a thing whites were still voting in large numbers for Democrats, both where they are an overwhelming majority like the upper Midwest and Great Plains, or where there were significant numbers of blacks like the South and urban areas. I'd say both sides backed the idea because it essentially legalized gerrymandering and incumbent protection. As you note, collecting Democrat-leaning voters in one district necessarily means Republican-leaning voters have to be partitioned into other districts. Everybody got something until those pesky voters started changing who they voted for.
Given trends, a Black majority district may soon be a Republican majority district. That’s politics, not race.
A scotus split along partisan lines is not a split down the middle…
I hope I live long enough to see the 1960s civil rights and bigotry obsession die. An entire generation or two might have to die off before this idiot obsession disappears.
…in the future, with assistance from AI and big data it will be possible to gerrymander a very rough-edged district no more than a household wide…
It would kill them…
The Progressives sure do love their racial quota systems.
@Moondawggie, damned right!
A map you can purchase for the wall: https://www.mapshop.com/louisiana-congressional-districts-wall-map/
I've read that majority-minority House districts are a not an insignificant reason for the dearth of black Senators. Those reps don't need to appeal to large numbers of white voters to win elections and therefore, in general, they fail to attract the statewide votes needed to win. True/false?
"I've read that majority-minority House districts are a not an insignificant reason for the dearth of black Senators."
That argument has been around for decades. You could say that this seeming favoritism toward black people is actually a mechanism to keep them in "their" place.
It's not just the tortured second black district. The first one is also absurdly drawn
Maybe Black people are worse off as a result of racial gerrymandering? The GOP has completely written them off and, for example, they're going to lose affirmative action and DEI.
You could say that this seeming favoritism toward black people is actually a mechanism to keep them in "their" place.
@Althouse, this argument has also been around for decades, but basically ignored because it’s been made by us despicable Republicans. And the fact that arguments have been @around for decades” does not make it wrong. Quite the contrary, I think.
Louisiana conservatives gained a unique victory in Saint George breaking away from Baton Rouge's failed government/schools. This issue seems tiny by comparison.
So Mr. Roberts called it a snake. Using animal references to uniquely shaped districts has a history. Of course, the gerrymander itself is the original, but 19th century Ohio saw the Scioto Seahorse, the Licking Waterwhelp (a sort of gerrymander), the Richland Roarer (a horse/alligator combo) and the Quail.
I think it is the second district that makes the first so weird.
"...a power they were granted as part of the Voting Rights Act in an attempt to address discriminatory electoral practices...."
Granted by whom? And for how long? It would seem like this game is one that absolutely depends upon discriminatory electoral practices as a raison d'etre, a mechanism to perpetuate them as a matter of party preference.
Althouse @ 7:44
Isn't it?
I think the last election showed that no matter what your race or party the best argument in favor of all the people is the best one.
Feels like there might be a bigger issue than the ridiculous gerrymander for the conservative bloc.
Via Real Clear Politics
If the Supreme Court (and really ALL courts) are now partisan, why do we even need a judiciary? And I'm not just talking about the specific issue of racial gerrymandering.
The premise originally was that the judicial branch would be composed of objective, clear-thinking, non-partisan people who would be fair arbiters of difficult issues based on the principles in our constitution. That is clearly no longer the case. The selection processes are overtly designed to ferret out which judges will vote reliably according to partisan interests. And they do. And many of them blatantly disregard the written principles in the constitution. So why not just dump the entire judicial branch?
DOGE, please look into the possible savings here.
'Can racism be used today to redress past racism' is a recurring legal theme these days is it not?
It's a healthy debate that's necessary in all multiracial societies.
The legacy of Diversity stokes a progressive condition in liberal democracies. #BabyLivesMatter
planetgeo said...
If the Supreme Court (and really ALL courts) are now partisan, why do we even need a judiciary? And I'm not just talking about the specific issue of racial gerrymandering.
The premise originally was that the judicial branch would be composed of objective, clear-thinking, non-partisan people who would be fair arbiters of difficult issues based on the principles in our constitution. That is clearly no longer the case. The selection processes are overtly designed to ferret out which judges will vote reliably according to partisan interests. And they do. And many of them blatantly disregard the written principles in the constitution. So why not just dump the entire judicial branch?
DOGE, please look into the possible savings here.
3/25/25, 8:14 AM
…
Actually what I find is the liberal justices vote based on what will result in the politically liberal or left outcome. The conservative justices decide based on what the constitution says. Can the state decide if a religious institution must support abortion? The constitution says no so the conservatives vote no. Supporting abortion is an important plank on the left so the liberal justices vote yes. We see this again and again.
There’s no liberal and conservative justices. There’s liberal and constitutional justices.
The 6th is a long thin diagonal line, which also distorts the 4th and the 5th. The 4th has two big parts and then a narrow isthmus that wraps around the top of the 6th. The 5th is the same, with a narrow part where Alabama juts into the western border of Louisiana between the two large parts of the 5th.
"What does the constitution say?" vs. "What do I want the constitution to say?"
What if the district identifies as black?
LOL. It's obvious none of ya'll ever lived in Louisiana.
The purpose of Democrat Party gerrymandering like this is to ensure that blacks congregate their housing amongst other blacks and keep them out of the white neighborhoods, where they would be minorities and thus outvoted. (There are other ways this is also done, this being but one of the levers used to keep blacks in black neighborhoods.)
Segregation then. Segregation now. Segregation forever.
All these stories about oral arguments either get proven wrong or state the obvious. The SCOTUS is ALWAYS split on partisan lines because the Democrat justices ALWAYS vote the liberal/left position no matter what. If something hurts the Democrats or goes against the "party line" the 3 justices will vote against it. NO MATTER WHAT.
The only question in these cases is whether Kavanaugh, ACB or Roberts will join the Democrats. And you can never tell that based on the oral arguments.
The SCOTUS shouldn't be involved in any case. What happens is the Democrats get upset if you put too many blacks and minorities in one district because it cuts down on their chance to win another seat. they want just enough blacks to win the seat, and then use the "leftover" blacks to win another.
Why we need a SCOTUS ruling on this is beyond me. But as shown by Boasberg, the Federal Judges run the country and can do anything they want. Cause 'murcia.
Laughing at the idea this was partial Republican plan. When the Voting Rights Act hit, there were essentially no Republicans in the South. I was there in Texas and I saw what happened. The national Democrat party wanted to punish the South and forced the formation of majority minority districts. It's what broke the stranglehold of the Dems in the South.
I apologize. At 7:54 I wrote “us despicable Republicans.” I meant, of course, “us deplorable Republicans.”
"gerrymandering like this is to ensure that blacks congregate their housing amongst other blacks"
So this is the blacks of Shreveport congregating with the blacks of Baton Rouge?
One might ask where are Michigan's majority black districts. By population, there should be two but there is only one black U.S. Representative and he is a Republican representing a 70+% white district. Or California which should have 3 but only has 2. This might not be a can worms that will only be eaten by Republicans if it gets fully opened by SCOTUS.
I feel like Democrats aren't fighting hard enough to keep their racism front and center for everyone to see.
This reminds me of the ludicrous lengths smokers will go to non-quit the tobacco habit, for example, I've given up cigarettes for my health. From now on, I smoke only cigars.
The way to end racism in the creation of Congressional districts is to stop racial gerrymandering.
Courts shouldn't have the ultimate say in how legislative districts are drawn. That's simply not a power allocated to the judiciary under the Constitution (or, presumably, under any state's constitution). It should just be left to state legislatures, not because they can be trusted to do it in a "fair" and "neutral" manner, but because they're elected.
No question how their AA justices will be voting.
"I wouldn't have written "granted.""
The states, as I understand the US Constitution, have 'plenary' powers, unlike the federal government powers, which are 'enumerated'.
Given the extent of our statistical sophistication, aren't there ways to create districts via objective criteria? Why not try that?
"Would it kill you, WaPo, to show a map and how ridiculous this district looks?
That reminds of a Family Guy skit
"being no more than a mile wide." I guess he couldn't just say "no wider than a mile" . . . because then everyone would break out singing "Moon River."
The crux of the case is if Justice Thomas can peel off Kavanaugh to agree that vote dilution under section 2 of the voting rights act must be retired now. Then the only thing voting rights act will ban is intentional discrimination in districting.
South Africa operates with progress principles for the benefit of Diversity leaders at the expense of the People, a legacy of terrorism under "minority" leaders (e.g. Mandela), British imperial divestment, and liberal dysphoria. Americans learned long ago that Diversity is divisive and excluded it from conservative principles under Declaration and Constitution. #BabyLivesMatter
Hopefully the decision will come down soon enough to redraw the Johnson and Scalise districts out of existence for 2026.
I will say that when the votes of three Supreme Court Justices can be predicted with near 100% certainty from DNC talking points, it does make the claims of Chief Justice Roberts regarding the impartiality of judges seem very foolish.
I guess the real test would be to get more Black Americans, more Black Louisianans, to vote Republican. I think you'd see a stampede of Democrats, led by three SC Justices, changing their opinions on that district post haste.
ronetc: "everyone would break out singing "Moon River.""
Dem Grifters, off to steal some votes,
There's such a lot of votes to steal,
We're after the same 'lect'ral end,
Waitin round the bend,
My ever-corrupt friend,
Voting Rights Act and me!
JSM
How does one explicitly create a black-majority district without it being a racial gerrymander? This is an oxymoron.
“I've looked at the map and, actually, I think the words make it seem worse than it looks.”
Wikipedia has the current map as well as the maps for past redistricting. The district generally follows the course of the Red River through Louisiana.
Likewise, the original Gerrymander also made some geographic sense, as the neck and head of the salamander are the towns on the north bank of the Merrimack River.
"Such maps cannot, however, be explicit racial gerrymanders." What BS! The VRA demands black majority districts and a state can get sued for not creating them. So, it requires the states to gerrymander in favor of blacks in order to create those.
If a law recognizes a difference between racial and political redistricting then that law is foolish. Race and politics are still hopelessly confounded. Even with republican gains a black district will with high confidence, vote for the democrats. Everyone knows this.
In my read of history, after the slavery stain was removed from legality, many laws were passed that were unconstitutional, but were just allowed to be enforced because something was needed to jolt the nation into an era of equality. Now we are at a point where those laws are being examined under the constitution instead of being hushed up.
These laws were an expedient, perhaps justified by morality but not by the constitution. We can and will erase them, one at a time, as we can out power their defenders, democrats who like to say race bias is needed because it gets them more power in congress.
ronetc said...
ronetc said..."being no more than a mile wide." I guess he couldn't just say "no wider than a mile" . . . because then everyone would break out singing "Moon River."
I chuckled audibly.
Gerrymandering is routine and practiced by Democrats aggressively. See how Maryland created an extremely odd set of districts some time back to cut the Republican house count from 2 of 8 to 1 of 8.
The ability to predict blacks voting for Democrats is 90% in many jurisdictions...
Look, back when the Democrats controlled the South, the VRA was perfectly reasonable. If 40% of the Democrat electorate is black, then requiring that 40% of the D Representatives be black was a perfectly reasonable thing to demand
But Trump got 36% of the vote in MA, a State with 8 D Reps, and 0 R Reps. If that is allowed, then LA should be allowed to gerrymander their State so Ds get 0 Reps, and the GOP gets 6, esp since black voters are less than 32% of the population.
Either Partisan gerrymandering is allowed, or it isn't. But if it is, it's allowed everywhere, and your skin color doesn't give a protection from it
Gerrymandering once got the Democrats 9 seats in just one state: California, of course. I believe it was the 1980 census and reapportionment, skillfully gerrymandered by the Democrats in the state legislature. In the 1982 election, if I have the year right (sorry, too lazy to check), the Democrats won 40% of the vote and 60% of the (45) seats.
Legislative districting is ALWAYS political. When/where "almost all" Black voters vote Democrat, Democrats will support gerrymandering in THEIR favor and Republicans will support gerrymandering the THEIR favor.
Fortunately for us good, non-racist, pro-good-government people, Trump has begun to break the Democrats' lock on the Black vote.
Historically, state-wide elections can undermine the effects of racist gerrymandering. When I was in college in Mass. in the '60's, we Young Republicans supported the Black (Republican) candidate for State Attorney-General (Ed Brooke), who was elected. He later was elected US Senator, but ran into some corruption charges (valid of not, I don't know).
It’s actually quite humorous. Majority minority districts are, of course, Dem districts. But to make them work, they typically come at a cost to the Dems. Esp in the South, in the past, they have often been created with minorities working with Republicans. Republicans liked them, because it allows them to concentrate Dem voters.
Of course there is the problem that they should be illegal state action under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amdt. Sure, the VRA may mandate them, but they still involve open and blatant discrimination based on race, which states are not allowed to do under our Constitution. As CJ Robert’s essentially said: The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.