"The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which had filed a brief in the case, said the justices had correctly 'recognized that our Constitution reserves race-based decision-making for the most extreme situations.' 'The governor did not justify his race-based redistricting,” the organization continued. 'The court was right to reject it.' Wisconsin has been among the most bitterly contested legal battlegrounds over partisan gerrymandering."
So one party tried to get one more majority-minority district and the other party tried to get one less. Neither tried to keep the number the same. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the governor needed to show that the federal Voting Rights Act required this additional majority-minority district. He didn't, so we end up with the only other map, the Republicans'.
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
I don’t think it’s fair the characterize this as one side tried to expand the number of minority districts, and one tried to reduce them. Evers’ maps relied on the dubious “Equity” formulation to create 7 districts that had just barely majority AA outcomes. That was deliberate, and required a huge amount of “cracking”, meaning splitting municipalities, etc. I don’t believe I’ve heard the legislature had a deliberate AA outcome in mind, but wanted to preserve the existing borders (which do favor the GOP). That the Evers map reduced Hispanic representation is never addressed. But of course as Hispanics are starting to trend away from the Dems, that’s now a feature rather than a flaw.
If public opinion polls are accurate, Hispanics have figured out Democrats promise and don't deliver. Republican social culture mirrors Hispanic's much closer. Family centered, education, hard work, Church, two genders....on and on.
In 10 years Republican's can add minority majority districts filled with Hispanics. Since Hispanics outnumber African Americans, Hispanic are about to become, 'White' Hispanics and lose their cachet.
All the leftists words are about to get brand new definitions.
i must have missed the part about racial equity being guaranteed in the Constitution. And specifically, only for Blacks.
Hmmm. So elections have consequences, even state legislative races.
With all the cheating by the Dems in 2020, what difference does it make?
Evers is not the smartest Democrat around. However, even the smart ones are painting themselves into a corner. They must rely on generic GOP fecklessness to bail them out, or at least moderate the electoral effects of Dem policies.
Take a good hard look at Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer, then ask yourself: How? Why?
So one party tried to get one more majority-minority district and the other party tried to get one less. Neither tried to keep the number the same.
This is an absolutely disingenuous and dishonest description of what happened in this case.
If your intent was to be a troll you succeeded.
Legislative power has its rewards.
Abortions have consequences. No African-American politician has spoken up about disproportionate numbers of abortions in the African-American communities, courtesy of Planned Parenthood. But abortion reduces numbers within the African-American community. In Dane County African-Americans are now the third largest minority group, after Asians and Hispanics. Soon they'll be the fourth - after Asians, Hispanics and Europeans. Have the Asians been gerrymandered out of a seat? Or the Hispanics in Milwaukee? That won't stand. The only way the African-Americans can keep from going from being under-represented to being over-represented to being not represented is by leaving the shrinking Just Us party and joining the universalist Justice party. If you know what I mean.
"Evers’ maps relied on the dubious “Equity” formulation to create 7 districts that had just barely majority AA outcomes. That was deliberate, and required a huge amount of “cracking”, meaning splitting municipalities, etc."
Yeah, I need to see the boundaries before I form an opinion. But I have my suspicions. Democrats blatantly state that they own half the electorate with their 'wasted votes' theory, or whatever they call it.
My view is that what is going on is that the Dems in the past in these states had the power to skew districts a bit in their direction, but have put their decennial gerrymandering efforts on overdrive this year, facing a blowout election this coming November. This is probably esp true in states like WI, where the Dems engaged in substantial and egregious election fraud in order to remove OrangeManBad from office. They are running scared now, and I think for good reason. They pushed too hard for partisan advantage, and got slapped down. Interestingly, it’s also happening in deep blue fortresses like NY.
Blogger StoughtonSconnie said..."I don’t think it’s fair the characterize this as one side tried to expand the number of minority districts, and one tried to reduce them."
Yeah, not everybody has race on the brain.
"I don’t think it’s fair the characterize this as one side tried to expand the number of minority districts, and one tried to reduce them."
At this stage of the litigation, that's what the 2 sides were trying to get the court to pick.
What they were "trying" to do when it all began or what they were "trying" to do each time they drew a line is, perhaps, more of a mystery. But it's pretty easy to say that they were both "trying" to do the same thing: grab more power for their party. It just happens that black people vote for Democrats so consistently that they are always getting exploited, one way or the other.
It is fascinating watching the Democrats trying to worm their way out of the gerrymandering that was done to create majority-minority districts in the first place. Most of the ones that exist today are won by blacks in 50+% margins at all levels- they are completely incapable of losing in not only the general election, but, once the incumbent, can't lose in the primary election either- they only leave office in a hearse or in the paddy wagon. This has hurt the Democrats a great deal, and helped the Republicans. Evers was trying to spread those black votes out so that a black office holder might only win their general election by around 20% in a good year and 5-10% in a bad one, while strengthening the chances of some white office holders to have a chance to win some Republican seats and have safer seats in the suburbs. The problem for Evers is that the blacks all live in Milwaukee and Madison- it takes a lot of gerrymandering to spread them out in a good way.
And I will add- it has done black people no good to have their representatives ghettoized the way it has been done. A representative that faces no challenge in winning re-election is going to be ineffective and more likely to be completely corrupt.
Was listen to a black radio station on my way to work this week and was surprised to hear quite a bit of anger from the host directed toward Evers for breaking up Lena Taylor's district. It's an interesting perspective that (surprise!) we never hear in Journal Sentinel.
We went from guarantee blacks the right to vote to 'guarantee blacks representation' to 'guarantee blacks get elected' to 'guarantee blacks can never be un-elected'.
The first time I saw the Orwellian term "minority-majority" I thought they were just being a smartass. When I saw Detroit, a city of 82% black, referred to as a "minority city" I thought these idiots don't even know the definition on minority.
Governors and judges seizing plenary powers from the legislature was inevitable if not the plan all along.
It just happens that black people vote for Democrats so consistently that they are always getting exploited, one way or the other.
Interesting terminology.
"It just happens that black people vote for Democrats so consistently that they are always getting exploited, one way or the other."
You'd think they'd get a clue.
Wild swan:
Last time I looked there were about 59 live births per 1000 women of child-bearing age nationally, and about 61 per 1000 for African Americans. That would seem to undercut your point.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
And I will add- it has done black people no good to have their representatives ghettoized the way it has been done. A representative that faces no challenge in winning re-election is going to be ineffective and more likely to be completely corrupt.
Hank Johnson is the model for ineffective. It was he who asked a Marine general if Guam would tip over if more Marines were stationed there.
Another example is Sheila Jackson Lee who asked a NASA official if the Mars rover could go over and look at the flag placed on the Moon by the astronauts.
Ann, I don’t disagree that both sides primary motivation is enhancing their position relative to the other. It’s simply that the Dems plan was explicit in its consideration of race (as you note by recognizing the left’s belief that they have a monopoly on African American vote), whereas the GOP doesn’t have to explicitly consider race to achieve their goal. They can rely on compact districts that don’t break up communities. The unfortunate outcome (from an African American voter perspective) is that left voters are more highly compacted. Whether that’s due to lefties living together by choice or dem policies that only speak to urban areas is up for debate. But African American voters are not distributed throughout the land, they tend to be highly concentrated.
The left will argue that the right is engaging in activities that are driven by “implicit bias”. I feel that much if the Diversity Inclusion Equity racket is a bid to distract from their explicit bias. Grouping people by and assuming actions and beliefs based on race isn’t racism. Not considering race isn’t just racist, it’s super racist, because it’s implicit and part of your subconscious.
Also, how many on the left truly in their heart of hearts think that State Senator Julian Bradley counts as an African American voice?
It's nothing but bitching and moaning 24/7.
I've tuned out.
I wish black people well, but I just don't care anymore.
Why is race considered a legitimate reason to group people into different political precincts?
Why are the organizations of precinct boundaries not forbidden by law from even knowing the race of anyone in any district? Other than the obvious reason, that Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, this seems to be a complete inversion of equality under the law, regardless of race, religion, country of origin, etc., because of a disparate impact - but an impact that falls only on policians, not the public.
Stop the government from being racist. Don't allow the government to use race for any reason!
Reading the VRA discussion section of the original WSC opinion which approved the Evers Assembly map I can see what irritated the USSC.
It's filled with "well maybe's" and "might be's" and references to ill-defined "leeway" in its analysis of whether the Governor's decision to build a racially motivated redistricting map matched the USSC's rulebook on such things.
"That's not nearly good enough, you midwestern hicks. You'll do it our way and you'll like it," said the Supremes.
Lucien said...
Wild swan:
Last time I looked there were about 59 live births per 1000 women of child-bearing age nationally, and about 61 per 1000 for African Americans. That would seem to undercut your point.
That may well be, but to continue the argument, both the annual infant mortality rate and childhood mortality rate (up to 19 yrs. of age) are ~2x higher for black infants/children/teens that for white infants/children/teens - on the order of .5 deaths per 1000 annually for black kids, 0.25 deaths per 1000 annually for white kids. At that rate, over the time for an infant to reach voting age, that 2 black births-rate advantage over whites will drop to a 2.5 voting-age lives advantage for whites.
When they say minority districts they don't mean Hispanic or Asian. So how is creating adistrict for one particular minority but not another minority acceptavle?
The problem of "majority-minority districts" is intractable and will never go away, because the only way to insure districts that can elect a Black person (assuming that Blacks always vote for Blacks) is to bleach the surrounding areas by cramming as many Blacks as possible into particular districts. Every M-m district therefore makes for one safe Black seat -- and one or more safe non-Black seats.
Of course, in WI the Black population is already very highly concentrated in a few cities, so it would take some serious gerrymandering just to split Black-majority areas among districts, so as to increase the likelihood of Democratic (but not necessarily Black) gains in seats. So for the Dems the question is: Do we want a smaller delegation that is more Black, or a larger one that is not necessarily as Black as the first?
"Take a good hard look at Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer, then ask yourself: How? Why?"
Or allow yourself even a sidelong glance at a thing like Jerry Nadler, or a puddle of reeking corruption like Adam Schiff.
affirmative, democratic discrimination
I think the correct terminology is that Republicans gerrymander, Democrats aggressively draw maps - or so FiveThirtyEight would have you believe, commenting on the Democrat (NY) redistricting map which will create a 22-4 D/R split in a state where 40% voted Republican in 2020.
Well, boo-hoo.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा