Anonymous #1 2w

If that’s what they did, maybe. Instead, they made it perfectly legal to gerrymander based on *partisanship*, but not race. So just gerrymander the districts to favor the group that opposes minority representation then suddenly… you have a racially gerrymandered district that the court has now legalized.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

It’s already been legal to gerrymander based on partisanship, that’s been going on for forever. Nothing changed but disallowing racial segregation. Don’t really care if the claim is “Hey, we threw all the black people together because it’s good!!!” It’s not

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Right, and their decision Monday to favor the Texas redistricting proved they’re fine with partisan gerrymanders. Again tho, now if there’s any plausible deniability that the map makers drew the maps to disenfranchise Dems that happen to be black, or republicans that happen to be Latino, that’s ok?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Like if a state is 40% minority, but 70% of districts are designed to have a white (conservative) majority, is that fair? Or should there be reasonable means to counteract that?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

yeah I really don’t think you get this the decision basically just says “ok race-based is still banned, but only if you can prove it was racial by one of the people in charge of it saying it was” and obviously they’re not going to say yeah, we made these decisions along racial lines Minorities tend to vote democrat, so all you gotta say is “yeah we did this to disenfranchise democrats who happen to be minorities” and it’s fine and legal

1

Anonymous #2 2w

That’s just not true. Even before this ruling courts were already striking down gerrymandering attempts for being racially motivated without it being stated as such. Once again, totally hot take: Racial segregation is bad not matter whether you say it’s good or bad

0

Anonymous #1 2w

You have a very clearly biased view of this. What’s stopping people from gerrymandering along “partisan lines” that effectively means a racially gerrymandered district gerrymander anyway? We’re saying the intent is what makes the outcome illegal, not the action? Unintentional murder is manslaughter. The equivalent of this case would be not prosecuting someone for manslaughter because they didn’t say they meant to kill.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

The courts will determine as they have been. Your comparison is ridiculous. You can deny anyone service in a restaurant, but if you deny based on race it’s a crime. You can kill someone and go to prison, but if it’s based on race it’s also a hate crime. There’s already precedent for intent in the law. And it’s clear. If you have an alligator swimming pool and say “no blacks allowed” that’s still illegal. Racial discrimination is illegal even if you claim it’s for the best

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Brother they’re just going to district out “all the dems” and say it’s a partisan gerrymander. Minorities consistently vote blue. So if they gerrymander blue districts out, they gerrymander minority votes out. They might not verbally intend that, but it will be the outcome. What’s ridiculous about the comparison? It’s not 1:1 obviously, but it’s very similar. Now you have to prove intent to even bring it to trial, instead of proving damages done.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

They’re not fighting racial discrimination with this ruling. They’re enabling it and trying to make it harder to speak out against it

1

Anonymous #1 2w

saying this proves you really do not have any idea what the ruling says “the courts will decide” the ruling guts the ability of the courts to decide there was racial discrimination

1