Quote:

---

Let's hope the states refusing to budge on redistricting (Georgia, for instance) think about this and act now rather than later.

---

Paging Harmeet Dillon! White courtesy phone, please. Wonder how many posters here even get that old reference.

Big win for President Trump and @SecDuffy! Can the federal government limit some non-Americans from being truck drivers? Yes, explains Judge Katsas joined by Judge Rao. At least for now. Stay of Secretary Duffy's common-sense safety regulation denied. Briefing expedited pic.twitter.com/vvhP30paiu

— Eric W. (@EWess92) May 5, 2026

🚨🚨🚨ACLU seek rehearing en banc from mandamus entered against Judge Boasberg. Will be interesting if the other judges want to keep the spectacle of Judge Boasberg's vanity project going. 1/ pic.twitter.com/N0P6eeJvGT

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 6, 2026

ACLU appeals to en banc review to facilitate judge boasberg's prosecution of the DoJ.

aggiehawg said:

---

The rest of above X post:

Quote:

---

"Ballotpedia, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2024 American Community Survey, estimates that these racially gerrymandered districts account for 148 seats in the House of Representatives. This is about one third of the House's 435 districts and 122 of them are held by Democrats more than half of their 212 seats."

---

I do think predicting the demise of the Democrat Party is wishful thinking. But the only way I see this redistricting battle over majority-minority districts ends is tossing results from an election from such districts.

Before Callais, I believed a federal court would never actually do that. Just negate the entire vote but now?

A losing candidate from such an illegally drawn district has built in standing to challenge. Those districts are test cases waiting to happen.

---

What is being overstated here is people think that it's now illegal to create a racially segregated district. It is not. If you create a district that serves your parties political interests it is legal, regardless of the racial makeup of the district.

What you cant do is challenge gerrymandered districts that were designed to be so due to political strategy because of race, unless you can prove to a certain standard that thr ONLY reason that the district was drawn that way was racism.

Under the current rules, it is going to be very, very hard for ANYONE to challenge a gerrymandered district. Its just that this helps the GOP so much because race was the primary reason to challenge a district, and that is gone now.

Just a way for democrats to get red states elect democrats.

There are....

29 African American Majority Minority districts.
29D - 0R
7 Asian American
7D - 0R
47 Hispanic
40D - 7R
36 White plurality (while non-Hispanic white residents are the single largest racial group in the district (a plurality), they do not make up more than 50% of the population)
30D - 6R

Total 119(27% of total House seats)
103D - 13R

will25u said:

---

Just a way for democrats to get red states elect democrats.

There are....

29 African American Majority Minority districts.
29D - 0R
7 Asian American
7D - 0R
47 Hispanic
40D - 7R
36 White plurality (while non-Hispanic white residents are the single largest racial group in the district (a plurality), they do not make up more than 50% of the population)
30D - 6R

Total 119(27% of total House seats)
103D - 13R

---

Out of that 119, how many of them were drawn by legislatures that were controlled by the GOP?
Because that is the proper statistic to concentrate on.

There is nothing illegal about any of those districts unless they were forced on a GOP legislature due to racial disparate impact. That is my point.

Quote:

---

There is nothing illegal about any of those districts unless they were forced on a GOP legislature due to racial disparate impact. That is my point.

---

To me same principle applies even if a Dem controlled legislature if a court ordered it to redress a racial component.

Just because a court ordered it doesn't make it legal.

Wouldn't ALL of those districts now be unconstitutional? They are all drawn by race.

will25u said:

---

Wouldn't ALL of those districts now be unconstitutional? They are all drawn by race.

---

only if race was why they were done. take for example texas 18. it was drawn that way to have democrats in a large majority. that it also has plurality of black voters is just a side effect, not the intent.

in the Lousiana district that SCOTUS ruled on, having a black district was the undisputed intent.

will25u said:

---

Wouldn't ALL of those districts now be unconstitutional? They are all drawn by race.

---

But it has to be specifically drawn for the reason, to discriminate on the basis of race.

Doing it for partisan purposes is allowed. To me it is too cute by half because the underlying assumption for such partisan reason is that blacks historically vote for Democrat candidates as a block.

Now that Callais has settled a bit, I don't think it went quite far enough. Should have added a compactness and contiguity test as well. But we'll see how and why such districts are justified.

Quote:

---

Out of that 119, how many of them were drawn by legislatures that were controlled by the GOP?
Because that is the proper statistic to concentrate on.

---

Disagree.

Many of the districts drawn by legislatures with GOP control will still drawn to avoid VRA litigation and DOJ challenges - race was a component in their drawing. Those requirements are now gone - so those districts can be re-drawn with stronger GOP majorities without concern for DOJ/party interference.

Massive administrative law win out of the Eighth Circuit in a challenge to President Biden's FCC's race-based digital discrimination rule. This was a 3-2 vote with a vigorous dissent from then-member @BrendanCarrFCC. Another huge civil rights victory for equality. pic.twitter.com/M2NB7h5NBU

— Eric W. (@EWess92) May 6, 2026

Read the full opinion, including the 17-pages of captions (and the amicus brief joined by @AGIowa asking for precisely this result) here: https://t.co/TZnx6yVoAE

— Eric W. (@EWess92) May 6, 2026

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There is nothing illegal about any of those districts unless they were forced on a GOP legislature due to racial disparate impact. That is my point.

---

To me same principle applies even if a Dem controlled legislature if a court ordered it to redress a racial component.

Just because a court ordered it doesn't make it legal.

---

This is interesting.

Court orders redistricting due to racial issue.
SCOTUS says this is illegal.
Dem legislature redraws to almost the exact same districts, but says it is 100% not racial this time, but political.

How do you argue they are lying?

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Out of that 119, how many of them were drawn by legislatures that were controlled by the GOP?
Because that is the proper statistic to concentrate on.

---

Disagree.

Many of the districts drawn by legislatures with GOP control will still drawn to avoid VRA litigation and DOJ challenges - race was a component in their drawing. Those requirements are now gone - so those districts can be re-drawn with stronger GOP majorities without concern for DOJ/party interference.

---

I'm failing to see where we disagree.

BusterAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There is nothing illegal about any of those districts unless they were forced on a GOP legislature due to racial disparate impact. That is my point.

---

To me same principle applies even if a Dem controlled legislature if a court ordered it to redress a racial component.

Just because a court ordered it doesn't make it legal.

---

This is interesting.

Court orders redistricting due to racial issue.
SCOTUS says this is illegal.
Dem legislature redraws to almost the exact same districts, but says it is 100% not racial this time, but political.

How do you argue they are lying?

---

I doubt it could be barely different and then you say it is not racially gerrymandered since the lines were drawn the first time racially.

But what do I know. Nor does it particularly matter. ALL states will just gerrymander politically as it is what they wanted to do in the first place and benefits them the most.

This just keeps the democrats from getting free seats in red states. At least that is how I like to look at it anyway.

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

Some were specifically stated they were for racial purposes. Those should be easily combatted.

But I am pretty meh on "racially" gerrymandered districts in blue states. Doesn't matter. IF a republican ever gets majorities there, then it would matter.

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

How many redistricting maps in the red states were turned down by dem DOJs because they didn't insure enough representation for minorities? Those states should be first in line to redo their maps based on the original maps they voted for instead of whatever the DOJ forced them into, as the revised maps were explicitly race based.

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

How many redistricting maps in the red states were turned down by dem DOJs because they didn't insure enough representation for minorities? Those states should be first in line to redo their maps based on the original maps they voted for instead of whatever the DOJ forced them into, as the revised maps were explicitly race based.

---

This ruling most certainly helps Republicans no matter how much wish casting and hand waving the Democrats do.

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

How many redistricting maps in the red states were turned down by dem DOJs because they didn't insure enough representation for minorities? Those states should be first in line to redo their maps based on the original maps they voted for instead of whatever the DOJ forced them into, as the revised maps were explicitly race based.

---

It was before my interest in politics began, but didn't Texas rely on the VRA to racially gerrymander in the 1990s to create more reliably RED districts? Essentially jerry-rigged the gerrymander to group minorities together as a means to get them out of red districts under a guise of giving them their voice in already blue districts.

I think looking at this as a mess that both sides allowed, that Dems pursued much more aggressively and that Rs are just catching up, and with the SCOTUS decision allows both parties to act with equal, but reckless abandon.

flown-the-coop said:

---

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

How many redistricting maps in the red states were turned down by dem DOJs because they didn't insure enough representation for minorities? Those states should be first in line to redo their maps based on the original maps they voted for instead of whatever the DOJ forced them into, as the revised maps were explicitly race based.

---

It was before my interest in politics began, but didn't Texas rely on the VRA to racially gerrymander in the 1990s to create more reliably RED districts? Essentially jerry-rigged the gerrymander to group minorities together as a means to get them out of red districts under a guise of giving them their voice in already blue districts.

I think looking at this as a mess that both sides allowed, that Dems pursued much more aggressively and that Rs are just catching up, and with the SCOTUS decision allows both parties to act with equal, but reckless abandon.

---

Mostly, yes. Texas like most southeastern states was under a section 2 consent decree, requiring DoJ approval (pre-clearance) of redistricting maps, until June of 2013 (Shelby County v. Holder).

The simple truth is that the maps as a result produced more partisan reps on both sides, but especially in the CBC. Hank Johnson, Jazzy, Clyburn etc. are the result. The 'red' districts though, by not having functionally relevant black populations at all, wound up not working to appeal at all to black conservatives/moderates imho (who were severely under-represented as a consequence). And, more racial resentment flowed from the idiocy of types like James Brown's hairpiece etc.

TLDR: gov't screws up everything it meddles in. Note that Steve Cohen, moron (D) might be replaced finally by...a black female...who long ago left the Democrat thought plantation.

Rx Who wants to tell the @TheTNHoller who the next congressman from Memphis will be...

Totally racist!

Charlotte Bergmann https://t.co/1ZaXXBMJ3m pic.twitter.com/ptDNdKS5CK

— The Gormogons (@Gormogons) May 6, 2026

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

How many redistricting maps in the red states were turned down by dem DOJs because they didn't insure enough representation for minorities? Those states should be first in line to redo their maps based on the original maps they voted for instead of whatever the DOJ forced them into, as the revised maps were explicitly race based.

---

I agree with this 1000%. But, a lot of the stats we see include blue states, which are not really helpful, because they are not going to be redrawn to become GOP seats. No way.

will25u said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The point is, districts that are drawn that are racially divided might also be districts that meet the political objectives of the people who drew them. They are not mutually exclusive, and it would be hard to argue that they are.

---

Some were specifically stated they were for racial purposes. Those should be easily combatted.

But I am pretty meh on "racially" gerrymandered districts in blue states. Doesn't matter. IF a republican ever gets majorities there, then it would matter.

---

Even if you do "combat" those districts, and the Dems come back with the exact same districts, would the GOP fight them?

Dem - We like these districts because they are good for us politically.

GOP - Yeah, but you could get the same number of seats if you used this map, but no black people would win.

Dem - Ok, do you really want us to use your maps? Why?

GOP - uh, let me check with my conference.......................the only thing we can come up with is that we hate black people and like to wear pointy hats.

There just isn't any positive reason to fight minority-majority districts in Dem controlled states. And there are plenty of reasons NOT to fight them.

That is correct. That is why I am meh about them keeping the districts how they are currently. Doesn't matter.

If a state flips red, then that would be a way to kick off redistricting.

But I am unsure if all VRA 2 districts need to be redrawn? They are unconstitutional.

will25u said:

---

That is correct. That is why I am meh about them keeping the districts how they are currently. Doesn't matter.

If a state flips red, then that would be a way to kick off redistricting.

But I am unsure if all VRA 2 districts need to be redrawn? They are unconstitutional.

---

IMO, in blue states, they won't be redrawn unless someone sues to try and make it happen, or until after the next census.

No one is going to sue in blue states, though.