Justice Department sues Texas over GOP-drawn voting maps

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 6, 2021.

  1. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,735
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Biden's DOJ is serving the interests of democracy, as a real president and DOJ should.

    This isn't the first time Texas has attempted to dilute the representation of blacks and latinos, they've done it a couple of times in the past since the Voting Rights act was gutted by the Supreme Court.

    In notably one of the worst decisions (in my opinion and by any reasonable measure) by the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, which nullified section 5 of that act which required the certain Southern States get preclearance approval from the DOJ before they went ahead with actions that could have discriminatory effects. With that decision, republican legislatures in the south went hog wild to gerrymander voting districts in favor of republicans, as well as to create legislation that had a discriminatory effect on those populations.

    SCOTUS has determined that they have no jurisdiction over partisan gerrymandering. however, unfortunately for Republicans in the South, that is pretty difficult to do without diluting the representation of blacks and latinos, and, as such, their gerrymandering has a discriminatory effect. That fact has led the DOJ to declare that the gerrymandering was accomplished in some areas precisely with discriminatory intent. I do believe that, with a conservative 6/3 court, the DOJ has an uphill battle in convincing them of this charge.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...ues-texas-over-gop-drawn-voting-maps-n1285460

    The Justice Department on Monday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Texas Republicans' plan for redrawing congressional and state legislative districts based on new Census figures.

    The lawsuit alleges that the state’s new maps, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, “deny or abridge the rights of Latino and Black voters to vote on account of their race, color, or membership in a language minority group," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference.

    The maps were drawn with discriminatory intent in some places, in a rushed process, with an "overall disregard" for the fact that Texas' population growth was driven almost entirely by Black and Hispanic residents, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said, speaking after Garland. The suit asks the court to stop the state from using the new maps.

    "Our investigation determined that Texas' redistricting plans will dilute the increased minority voting strength that should have developed from these significant demographic shifts," Gupta said.

    Texas was allocated two more Congressional seats after the 2020 Census, but did not draw a single new district with a majority of Black or Hispanic voters. The two new seats have white voting majorities, Gupta said.
     
    Hey Now and Phyxius like this.
  2. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,722
    Likes Received:
    21,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When does the DOJ come after California for its massive gerrymandering?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  3. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,986
    Likes Received:
    4,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you didn't know those provisions explicitly could not and would not last long, along with all affirmative action etc, then you haven't actually read the decisions which created those restrictions and furthered them.

    Nothing so permanent as a government program.
     
  4. Aristotle66

    Aristotle66 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2021
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    The proper role of government is to make sure everyone has access to voting.
     
    Marcotic, cd8ed, Hey Now and 2 others like this.
  5. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    35,023
    Likes Received:
    24,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I started the same thread 15 minutes earlier but didn't get any play...

    Good for them... Hope this accomplishes something,
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  6. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    35,023
    Likes Received:
    24,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just visually, California's current map doesn't look nearly as ridiculous as the Texas proposed map. Also, I can find no source that lists California among the top gerrymanders in the country. Maybe you can..

    But all gerrymandering must stop or democracy eventually will... Nobody who is voted in to legislate in a state should draw it's voting districts...

    But speaking of California, one more genuine swamp creature drained... or should I say milk giving creature..

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-devin-nunes-retiring-214942125.html
     
    cd8ed and Hey Now like this.
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,735
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    California doesn't gerrymander. It doesn't need to, we're a strong blue state.

    Moreover, I'll back that up as follows:

    https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/CA
    California's state legislative and congressional districts are drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The commission was established after the passage of California Proposition 11, or the Voters First Act, in 2008 for state legislative districts, and Proposition 20 in 2010 for congressional districts. The commission consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents or voters affiliated with another party.

    Members of the commission are selected through a rigorous process. Initial and supplemental applications, due in late 2019, were reviewed by the Applicant Review Panel (ARP). After selecting and conducting interviews with the 120 most qualified candidates by May 2020, the ARP narrowed the pool down to 60, divided evenly across party affiliations. The Legislature had until the end of June to remove up to 24 applicants. The State Auditor then randomly selected the first eight commissioners from the remaining list, and these eight themselves selected the final six.


    Now then.....

    Gerrymandering, per se, isn't the issue, discrimination is.

    Question: How is the redistricting in CA discriminatory?

    Answer: It isn't.
     
    Marcotic, Hey Now and The Mello Guy like this.
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,735
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The only thread I saw by you had do to Switzerland and suicide?

    Could you link to the thread? I can't find it.
     
  9. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,798
    Likes Received:
    38,723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt it. Molech Garland is a dirtbag that attacks parents for speaking up at school board meetings and illegitimately abuses them by pretending they are domestic terrorists.

    When the GOP resumes control of Congress they need to cut the DOJ budget by 5% a month, every month, until Dirtbag Garland resigns.
    More fake news. On "June 25, 2013, the Court ruled Section 4(b) was was based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states." The Court did not strike down Section 5, merely required the 40 year old data to be updated.
    More fake news, update the now 49 year old data, because despite all the theatrical whining and moaning, Dems have not updated the formula coverage, and section 5 is still in place and still good law, if current formula data supports it.
    More fake news. If Democrats want more competitive districts, they should draw them. The most lopsided districts in the nation favor Democrats and nearly all of them were drawn by Democrats.

    There is only 1 district where the opposing party overcome a +6 partisan lean, yet, Democrats have 21 districts that exceed
    D+30. And the great majority were drawn by Democrats.
    Pennsylvania 3 D+41 Democratic
    California 13 D+40 Democratic
    New York 13 D+40 Democratic
    New York 15 D+39 Democratic
    California 12 D+38 Democratic
    Illinois 7 D+37 Democratic
    California 37 D+36 Democratic
    Georgia 5 D+36 Democratic
    Washington 7 D+36 Democratic
    Massachusetts 7 D+35 Democratic
    California 34 D+34 Democratic
    New Jersey 10 D+34 Democratic
    New York 5 D+34 Democratic
    New York 7 D+34 Democratic
    New York 12 D+34 Democratic
    Illinois 4 D+33 Democratic
    New York 8 D+33 Democratic
    California 44 D+32 Democratic
    New York 9 D+32 Democratic
    California 40 D+31 Democratic

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index#By_congressional_district

    If Dems want more balanced districts, they should draw some.

    https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10324

    Tell me the one about how the Left is all about the Court following Precedent.

    "—the Court has never nullified a map because of partisan gerrymandering."

    "In 1962 in Baker v. Carr, the Court held that a constitutional challenge to a redistricting plan is justiciable, identifying factors for determining when a case presents a non-justiciable political question, including “a lack of a judicially discoverable and manageable standard for resolving it.”

    If the clowns that object to leaving this as a political question rather than a justiciable one can come up with a "judicially discoverable and manageable standard for resolving it" you'll get a hearing, but, when the Court requested that, the Contemptible Eric "The With" Holder laid a goose egg.

    Weird how some folks are always blaming others for their own screw ups and shortcomings.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
    AmericanNationalist likes this.
  10. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    5,954
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The lawsuit alleges the districts drawn violate the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of minority voters….. What a petty argument. They lost two solid democrat seats and are trying to steal them back from texas. This lawsuit won’t pass constitutional scrutiny.
     
    the breeze likes this.
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,548
    Likes Received:
    34,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funniest thing I have heard all day.
     
    the breeze and Moolk like this.
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,735
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not about partisan gerrymandering, it's about diluting representation to blacks and Latinos, which is what the Texas suit is all about. It's about discrimination. That does fall within the DOJ's jurisdiction.

    I think you do not understand what gerrymandering is. Gerrymandering is when the districting is disproportional, not to itself, but to the electorate such that a discriminatory effect is achieved. Whether that is the official definition isn't the point, the point is what, indeed, falls under the DOJ's jurisdiction? Gerrymandering that results in diluting representational access to blacks and minorities does fall under DOJ's jurisdiction as it violates the Voting Rights Act.

    California doesn't gerrymander. It doesn't need to, we're a strong blue state.

    Moreover, I'll back that up as follows:

    https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/CA
    California's state legislative and congressional districts are drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The commission was established after the passage of California Proposition 11, or the Voters First Act, in 2008 for state legislative districts, and Proposition 20 in 2010 for congressional districts. The commission consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents or voters affiliated with another party.

    Members of the commission are selected through a rigorous process. Initial and supplemental applications, due in late 2019, were reviewed by the Applicant Review Panel (ARP). After selecting and conducting interviews with the 120 most qualified candidates by May 2020, the ARP narrowed the pool down to 60, divided evenly across party affiliations. The Legislature had until the end of June to remove up to 24 applicants. The State Auditor then randomly selected the first eight commissioners from the remaining list, and these eight themselves selected the final six.


    Now then.....

    Gerrymandering, per se, isn't the issue, discrimination is.

    Question: How is the redistricting in CA discriminatory?

    Answer: It isn't.

    If CA districts have more dems, it's because there are more dems.

    If it had more repubs than dems, and the legislature had more dems than repubs, then you could claim gerrymandering.

    Terms like 'fake news' 'dirt bag', are not arguments, they are rants. I do not engage with such tactics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
    Indlib likes this.
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,735
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, they have a solid case. If you take back what was stolen from you, that is not theft, that is justice.
     
  14. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,798
    Likes Received:
    38,723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Weird that you brought that up then.
    That's a justiciable question that the Court can resolve.
    I know Gerrymandering like few others. It's what Dems use to explain election losses that are actually because voters think they suck.
     
    AmericanNationalist likes this.
  15. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,384
    Likes Received:
    3,892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    America has never been for voting rights. It has always restricted voting but it does have great propaganda about how it stands for democracy.
     
  16. Moolk

    Moolk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    9,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This admin is serving the interests of fascists. Who woulda known.
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  17. Moolk

    Moolk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    9,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know right? This admin hasn’t once fought for Americans.
     
    Joe knows and Hoosier8 like this.
  18. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,689
    Likes Received:
    12,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would say when a republican takes office but they don't care about that so never.

    It's a rule for thee but not for me.

    It doesn't matter if it gets to the Supreme Court the doj will lose because that's under the purview of the state it's 10th Amendment issue.
     
    HB Surfer likes this.
  19. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    5,756
    Likes Received:
    4,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe I am wrong here but I thought SCOTUS had already held up gerrymandering as constitutional?
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  20. clovisIII

    clovisIII Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK. Ive already walked you through this on another thread somewhere where you brought this up.
    If a state has completely imbalanced districts it is probably proof that there has not been a concerted effort to gerrymander. Or at least not effectively. California voted for Biden 63% to 34%. With such an advantage, California, if they were really gerrymandering would spread that advantage as evenly as possible througout the state, and make sure that every district had pretty much that distribution. Giving them complete control of all CA congressmen. Making imbalanced districts like what you sited is actually counterproductive. The only time that can work is if you are in fact in the minority and pack a few districts completely with the opposing party so that you can than be a majority in other districts (ie Wisconsin where the state is majority democrat yet the congressional delegation is 5-3 republican and came very close to being 6-2).
    Also need to point out that the numbers are way more imbalanced than what you posted. a PVI is the points above the national average (ie presidential election) by which that district voted. So CA +40 means that the democrat got 40 points above Biden's national results. ie the congresswoman won that district 91% to 9% (i;m guessing unopposed?) So these numbers really don't mean much. What you CAN look at is how many republicans or democrats are represented in congress by each state and compare it to the amount of congressmen each party has to start building a case.
    Both parties gerrymander. The republicans more than the democrats, but only because the 2010 gerymandering was so sophisticated that it allowed the then governing party (republicans) to build vote proof districts. Democrats, whenever given a chance will gerrymander just as much., I have no doubt.

    But please stop invoking democrat strongholds as proof of gerrymandering, that is just bad math and bad arguments.
     
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,735
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't actually provide a counter argument to my rebuttal.

    A vacuous allegation is not an argument. You have demonstrate your argument, reason, evidence, something.

    If you have a counter argument, please provide it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  22. clovisIII

    clovisIII Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to make it simple. Imagine Wisconsin has 100 people, 50 democrats and 50 republicans, for 10 congressional districts. The party in power at the time, let's say republicans, redraw the district: they make three districts fully democratic (10 people for each ditrict). They split up the rest of the democrats evenly in the 7 other districts. They also split up all the republicans evenly in those 7 districts. This gives you: 3 districts run by democrats (10-0 votes), and seven districts run by republicans (7-3) with a pretty insurmountable lead in all 7 districts (ie it's not even close).*

    So a 50/50 split ends up being a 7-3 lead by a party with almost no chance of the minority part of overturning it (after all, they are at +40 in those 7 districts). And yet 2 districts are +100 democrats. So you see @Zorro that a ridiculously overwhelming advantage of a party in one district is not necessarily the proof of gerrymandering. It tends to be proof of gerrymandering the other way if anything. If you are the party in power you want to spread your advantage as heavily and evenly as possible, and pack a few districts with all your opponents if there are too many of them to outright win every distric safely.



    *please allow for rounding errors
     
  23. 10A

    10A Chief Deplorable Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    5,613
    Likes Received:
    875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  24. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    36,916
    Likes Received:
    18,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That cannot be called a gerrymandering advantage, because in your own words, the Democrats are split with the Republicans in the other 7 districts(ie: they're neutered.) There isn't a numerical advantage in what you proposed. The only way a split of Democrats/Republicans would be at a disadvantage, is if you're arguing the split of Republicans is larger than the split of Democrats. But even then, is that an effect of the map or is that an effect of the party(ie: If these people, individuals were to vote democratic, they would have done so.)

    If this is what Democrats view as 'gerrymandering', then it is exactly as Zorro said: They're complaining not about a manipulated map, but of their failure to attract voters using the map as a convenient excuse.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  25. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    5,954
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How was it stolen, there was a mass exudes from California. Even my state feels it. People left California because of their politics and cost of living they don’t want their crap anymore.
     

Share This Page