Wisconsin GOP want Supreme Court to block map that adds a black majority district...

[Puigb]

The GOP calls it a "21st century racial gerrymander".............
Thats a bit rich coming from a party who excels in gerrymandering!!!

what is their problem with black voters?????

This argument is “a little odd” coming from Republicans, said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that represented clients in the state litigation who favored the creation of a seventh Black district. That’s because the map the Republican-controlled state legislature initially drew, and wants the Supreme Court to adopt, reduced the number of Black-majority districts from six to five.
“It’s a very aggressive move, and it’s weaved in with a bunch of cynicism,” Gaber said.

Though the Republicans’ argument that the court should reduce Black voting power on the legal basis that the alternative harmed Black voters appears to be particularly cynical, it fits with the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce Black voting power across the country.

Wisconsin Republicans Want Supreme Court To Block Map That Adds A Black-Majority District

One voting rights expert called the state redistricting challenge from GOP legislators "an aggressive move … weaved in with a bunch of cynicism."

www.huffpost.com

GOP always loses when black turn out is high. Why do you think all their bogus "election fraud" claims are ALWAYS in heavily black/minority areas? It's done by design.

 

[LouC]

Wisconsin GOP want Supreme Court to block map that adds a black majority district...

If true all I can say is "Of course they do!"

 

[Gateman_Wen]

That can only happen when you know how someone will vote before they vote. Are you under the impression that black people will all vote a certain way?

They have access to history. None of this happens in a vacuum.

 

[trouble13]

The GOP calls it a "21st century racial gerrymander".............
Thats a bit rich coming from a party who excels in gerrymandering!!!

what is their problem with black voters?????

This argument is “a little odd” coming from Republicans, said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that represented clients in the state litigation who favored the creation of a seventh Black district. That’s because the map the Republican-controlled state legislature initially drew, and wants the Supreme Court to adopt, reduced the number of Black-majority districts from six to five.
“It’s a very aggressive move, and it’s weaved in with a bunch of cynicism,” Gaber said.

Though the Republicans’ argument that the court should reduce Black voting power on the legal basis that the alternative harmed Black voters appears to be particularly cynical, it fits with the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce Black voting power across the country.

Wisconsin Republicans Want Supreme Court To Block Map That Adds A Black-Majority District

One voting rights expert called the state redistricting challenge from GOP legislators "an aggressive move … weaved in with a bunch of cynicism."

www.huffpost.com

If we followed the logic democrats are arguing in other courts where they are trying to end gerrymandering, blacks should not even be given more than 1 majority district. The black population in that state is 6% and Wisconsin has 8 districts. If they have 5 or 6 districts that is a massive over representation of the black community in that state.

 

[less right]

Look at the picture. When everything was completely segregated, WaPo said Perfect.

Perfect representation. Meaning everyone gets to elect a number of representatives equal to the number of party voters.

It's not a suggestion for districting. It's a graphic example of why "perfect" representation doesn't happen.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Look at the picture. When everything was completely segregated, WaPo said Perfect.

Of course, the challenges have been racist. take Texas for example. The Democrats challenged the new map because there were no Hispanic-majority districts. The only way you can reach that conclusion is if you use race as the primary criterion for selecting districts. The new map extensively mixes urban, suburban, and rural areas in districts, producing compact districts with a mix of many demographics. The new map is significantly more integrated and Democrats object because they want segregation.

It's not my GOP. I'm not a member and have frequently voted Democrat, eg Obama.

I don't know what you mean with the cult reference. They are generally anti-Republican and always anti-Trump but not relevant.

Yep, the idea seems to be that purposefully creating racially segregated (concentrated?) districts can be a good thing. Oddly, Hispanic is not a race according to the US census.

Texas does have some very gerrymandered congressional districts. The following link contains my congressional district’s (TX 35) map. It is a long, thin strip along I-35 which has parts of 5 counties (yet no entire county) and parts of two cities (Austin and San Antonio) about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ttwtt78640]

If we followed the logic democrats are arguing in other courts where they are trying to end gerrymandering, blacks should not even be given more than 1 majority district. The black population in that state is 6% and Wisconsin has 8 districts. If they have 5 or 6 districts that is a massive over representation of the black community in that state.

They are talking about the state’s 99 legislative districts - not the state’s 8 congressional districts.

 

[Subieguy]

If we followed the logic democrats are arguing in other courts where they are trying to end gerrymandering, blacks should not even be given more than 1 majority district. The black population in that state is 6% and Wisconsin has 8 districts. If they have 5 or 6 districts that is a massive over representation of the black community in that state.

your faulty logic is leaking through.....Oooops!

 

[bongsaway]

1 person 1 vote, how does what district they vote in reduce a person's voting power

You would have to ask your fellow republicans for some reason or other they think in a presidential election one person one vote favors the dems. I'm with you, one person one vote, no more electoral college, no more gerrymandering and no other ways to negate our votes like winner takes all states.

 

[Jay59]

Perfect representation.

That is what I said.

Meaning everyone gets to elect a number of representatives equal to the number of party voters.

I am sure that is what they meant to say. It's not what they did say.

It's not a suggestion for districting.

Of course not. It's put forward as an ideal, hence the use of the word perfect.

It's a graphic example of why "perfect" representation doesn't happen.

This is not true.

It is one of the two extremes, one of which is bad and one of which is perfect. Note that the bad extreme is complete integration.

It's worth noting that the illustration assumes that the state minority has control of the process, which is backard.

Yep, the idea seems to be that purposefully creating racially segregated (concentrated?) districts can be a good thing.

There has always been a racism-to-fight-racism theme.

Oddly, Hispanic is not a race according to the US census.

The Census Bureau is behind the times. It has been for a generation or two.

Texas does have some very gerrymandered congressional districts. The following link contains my congressional district’s (TX 35) map. It is a long, thin strip along I-35 which has parts of 5 counties (yet no entire county) and parts of two cities (Austin and San Antonio) about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's the one that went to the Supreme Court and was allowed to stand. They left alone this round, correct?

 

[less right]

That is what I said.


I am sure that is what they meant to say. It's not what they did say.


Of course not. It's put forward as an ideal, hence the use of the word perfect.


This is not true.

It is one of the two extremes, one of which is bad and one of which is perfect. Note that the bad extreme is complete integration.

It's worth noting that the illustration assumes that the state minority has control of the process, which is backard.

It's not what you said.

It's exactly what they said with the picture.

Again, they didn't call it "perfect", they called it a perfect "representation". (Not to be confused with actual representations).

It's worth nothing the graph's were meant to explain the pitfalls of gerrymandering districts, not to suggest one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is what I said.


I am sure that is what they meant to say. It's not what they did say.


Of course not. It's put forward as an ideal, hence the use of the word perfect.


This is not true.

It is one of the two extremes, one of which is bad and one of which is perfect. Note that the bad extreme is complete integration.

It's worth noting that the illustration assumes that the state minority has control of the process, which is backard.


There has always been a racism-to-fight-racism theme.

Yep, which is moronic. It assumes that ‘good’ racism (favoring a minority) is necessary.

The Census Bureau is behind the times. It has been for a generation or two.

It’s likely that selecting additional ‘special’ ethnicities is considered to be problematic. As it stands now, Hispanic or non-Hispanic is the only ethnic data reported by the census.

That's the one that went to the Supreme Court and was allowed to stand. They left alone this round, correct?

They made some minor tweaks to it. Probably because its population grew too much (since the last census) to be left alone.

 

[bave]

The GOP calls it a "21st century racial gerrymander".............
Thats a bit rich coming from a party who excels in gerrymandering!!!

Can you point me towards your thread about the NY unconstitutional gerrymander?

 

[Perotista]

The GOP calls it a "21st century racial gerrymander".............
Thats a bit rich coming from a party who excels in gerrymandering!!!

what is their problem with black voters?????

This argument is “a little odd” coming from Republicans, said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that represented clients in the state litigation who favored the creation of a seventh Black district. That’s because the map the Republican-controlled state legislature initially drew, and wants the Supreme Court to adopt, reduced the number of Black-majority districts from six to five.
“It’s a very aggressive move, and it’s weaved in with a bunch of cynicism,” Gaber said.

Though the Republicans’ argument that the court should reduce Black voting power on the legal basis that the alternative harmed Black voters appears to be particularly cynical, it fits with the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce Black voting power across the country.

Wisconsin Republicans Want Supreme Court To Block Map That Adds A Black-Majority District

One voting rights expert called the state redistricting challenge from GOP legislators "an aggressive move … weaved in with a bunch of cynicism."

www.huffpost.com

I think the Republicans are stupid as all get out. History has shown blacks in an average election will vote 90% democratic. It is my opinion it would be to the GOP’s advantage to put as many blacks into their own district as possible. Embrace the majority black districts to no end and add a few white liberals to those districts.

That leaves the rest of the districts much more Republican voting. You can have the black democrat winning his district 80-20 or about while the GOP is winning their districts 55-45 or so. I’m an odd ball here. I personally think all these majority minority districts are diluting the black voter’s strength. I’m looking at it as voting power throughout the state in the remaining districts, not in just one or two majority black districts. Black voters could have power statewide or they could limit their power to a district or two while having little to no say in the remaining districts. But interpretation of this is subjective.

Here in Georgia, an example, Democrats and Republicans are divided fairly evenly statewide. But what Georgia’s new map does is make 5 majority black districts ensuring a black democrat is elected. Those 5 democrats win 80-20 if they have a GOP opponent, a lot of times they don’t. But that leaves the remaining 9 districts where the Republicans are winning 55-45. In the end you have a 9-5 GOP advantage in Georgia’s congressional delegation thanks to the court mandated majority black districts. Without those majority black districts, the count would most likely be 7-7.

Far as I’m concerned, it stupid as hell for the Republicans not to utilize the majority black districts to their benefit instead of fighting them. In the long run, nationwide, it comes out to the Republicans advantage to embrace them. But like I say, I’m the odd ball, the weird one here.

 

[Cardinal]

1 person 1 vote, how does what district they vote in reduce a person's voting power

That depends on how the map is drawn. You know how gerrymandering works, right?

 

[ttwtt78640]

1 person 1 vote, how does what district they vote in reduce a person's voting power

Easily, by placing them in a district where they are known to be a minority. Only the winning (by majority or plurality) candidate represents that district.

My congressional district (TX-35) is gerrymandered to be about 2 to 1 ‘blue’ so a ‘red’ candidate has basically no chance.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crovax]

Easily, by placing them in a district where they are known to be a minority. Only the winning (by majority or plurality) candidate represents that district.

My congressional district (TX-35) is gerrymandered to be about 2 to 1 ‘blue’ so a ‘red’ candidate has basically no chance.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yup you got stuck with Dogget, he was in my district before that redistrict happened

 

[lwf]

Using racial makeup to define districts is racist no matter what "data" you use

No argument. Just explaining how using racial or political makeup to define districts can disempower voters. Gerrymandering combined with a winner-take-all policy can subvert the will of the majority.

 

[Crovax]

No argument. Just explaining how using racial or political makeup to define districts can disempower voters. Gerrymandering combined with a winner-take-all policy can subvert the will of the majority.

That's incorrect, each district is it's own entity and the majority or plurality winner of that district is chosen by its voters. Gerrymandering can only exist when you know how voters will vote before they do. If a single cross section can predict how you vote 90% of the time then that group should be evaluating their positions

 

[lwf]

You have to love that the Washington Post uses 100% segregation as the standard of perfection.

This is why most Democratic challenges to new maps have been racist in nature.

So are Republican challenges. Segregation is every bit as politically convenient for Republicans. Expanding a single district to encompass as much of the black population as possible lowers their voting power and is every bit as racist (if not more) as gerrymandering to add an additional district based on black population.

 

[Jay59]

So are Republican challenges. Segregation is every bit as politically convenient for Republicans. Expanding a single district to encompass as much of the black population as possible lowers their voting power and is every bit as racist (if not more) as gerrymandering to add an additional district based on black population.

This is hypothetical. Can you show specific cases? TX-35 is out. It was drawn in 2011 and passed a court challenge.

One thing that is flying under the radar. The party drawing the districts does not need to even consider race. They can do just as well looking at voting patterns which is sufficient to defeat most civil rights challenges.

 

[lwf]

This is hypothetical. Can you show specific cases? TX-35 is out. It was drawn in 2011 and passed a court challenge.

One thing that is flying under the radar. The party drawing the districts does not need to even consider race. They can do just as well looking at voting patterns which is sufficient to defeat most civil rights challenges.

Just because it passed a court challenge doesn't mean it wasn't obviously drawn with discriminatory intent. The plaintiff simply couldn't prove in court that it was racially motivated and therefore it was assumed to be permissible gerrymandering under the law regardless of how extreme a case it was.

As for the bolded, I'm sure that's what they're doing. Race is brought up by both parties to battle gerrymandering by the controlling party. But the controlling party would never actually admit to using race as a factor. Democrats seek to empower black votes, and attempt to do so with racial gerrymandering disguised as gerrymandering based on voting patterns. Republicans seek to disempower black votes using the same tool for the same reason: Blacks vote Democrat.

 

[Jay59]

Just because it passed a court challenge doesn't mean it wasn't obviously drawn with discriminatory intent.

Obvious how. Show your work.

The plaintiff simply couldn't prove in court that it was racially motivated and therefore it was assumed to be permissible gerrymandering under the law regardless of how extreme a case it was.

The point is that you only assume it was racially motivated. If you have actual proof, bring it.

If you want an alternate explanation, it could be that the map intended to group heavily Democratic precincts without regard to race. That is sufficient to refute a civil rights racial prejudice case.

As for the bolded, I'm sure that's what they're doing.

This is a flat admission that it is not racially based. Full stop.

Race is brought up by both parties to battle gerrymandering by the controlling party. But the controlling party would never actually admit to using race as a factor.

For the good reason that it probably isn't. Why would a Republican care what color a Democrat is, or vice versa? The point is that it is an opposing vote.

Democrats seek to empower black votes, and attempt to do so with racial gerrymandering disguised as gerrymandering based on voting patterns.

This is an outdated and disproven political spin. Both parties care about the number of votes that they can bring regardless of the race of the voter.

Republicans seek to disempower black votes using the same tool for the same reason: Blacks vote Democrat.

You have it backward. Republicans don't care what color a Democratic voter is. The party is the only thing that counts.

 

[lwf]

Obvious how. Show your work.


The point is that you only assume it was racially motivated. If you have actual proof, bring it.

If you want an alternate explanation, it could be that the map intended to group heavily Democratic precincts without regard to race. That is sufficient to refute a civil rights racial prejudice case.


This is a flat admission that it is not racially based. Full stop.


For the good reason that it probably isn't. Why would a Republican care what color a Democrat is, or vice versa? The point is that it is an opposing vote.


This is an outdated and disproven political spin. Both parties care about the number of votes that they can bring regardless of the race of the voter.


You have it backward. Republicans don't care what color a Democratic voter is. The party is the only thing that counts.

They care what color a voter is when they are redistricting and the color of their skin likely signifies which party they support. And in red states they make sure communities of people of a skin color that signals a likely Democratic voter are as packed into as few districts as possible. Yes they are bigoted against Democrats, not necessarily against minorities. But skin color is a useful metric on average to predict who is going to vote Democrat.

So of course redistricting it is racially based. They look at voting patterns, realize that black communities support Democrats, so they find the black communities and draw district lines around them in order to ensure a minimal number of districts as possible ends up with a Democrat win. This is racial gerrymandering for the express purpose of disempowering black voters. That is racist. That their ultimate goal is political power is irrelevant.

 

[Jay59]

They care what color a voter is when they are redistricting and the color of their skin likely signifies which party they support.

You shoot your credibility with your first sentence. You likely care more than they do.

And in red states they make sure communities of people of a skin color that signals a likely Democratic voter are as packed into as few districts as possible.

More cult talking points. For someone who claims to go for substance, you are being entirely the opposite.

Yes they are bigoted against Democrats, not necessarily against minorities.

Your own bigotry is showing.

But skin color is a useful metric on average to predict who is going to vote Democrat.

To you, it appears, not to a serious politico.

So of course redistricting it is racially based.

Back to the unfounded assumpttions.

They look at voting patterns, realize that black communities support Democrats, so they find the black communities and draw district lines around them in order to ensure a minimal number of districts as possible ends up with a Democrat win. This is racial gerrymandering for the express purpose of disempowering black voters. That is racist.

It's not what they are doing. Apparently, it is what you would do in their place.

That their ultimate goal is political power is irrelevant.

When it is the only relevant factor.