This is wild - GOP is looking at a 29 seat majority on the low end if VRA goes down.

Projected GOP Gains from Gerrymandering combined if VRA/Sec 2 going down at Scotus:

Probabilities:

Low Range (Limited Overturn: Weakens but doesn't fully gut Section 2; ~10-12 seats flipped via partial redraws)
+12
232 GOP vs. 203 Dem - 29 Seat GOP majority

Mid Range (Full Overturn: Enables standard racial dilution challenges; ~19 seats flipped)
+19
239 GOP vs. 196 Dem - 44 Seat GOP Majority

High Range (Aggressive Maximization: No VRA recourse + mid-decade redraws; ~27 seats flipped)
+27
247 GOP vs. 188 Dem - 59 Seat GOP Majority

If this happens there's a good chance we never see a democrat house for a generation. And it should happen because Section 2 is racism in action.

Teslag said:

---

If this happens there's a good chance we never see a democrat house for a generation. And it should happen because Section 2 is racism in action.

---

This is 10000% true.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

This is wild - GOP is looking at a 29 seat majority on the low end if VRA goes down.

Projected GOP Gains from Gerrymandering combined if VRA/Sec 2 going down at Scotus:

---

Just to be clear, the new voting districts would be eliminating Democrat gerrymandered districts and resetting the political map back to what it should have been all along.

How likely is something this sensible to actually occur though? Would it be allowed. There are so many things imposed that it only seems mass public action could correct.

Great news!!!!
Starts the End of Democrat party
Hope same for Senate

If we just didn't count people illegally in the country, the dems would be a semi-permanent minority.

To win any elections, the left wing of the dems would be relegated back to their corner with all the other freaks. Relegated back to communist/ socialist/ anarchist/ fascist / white supremacist land, away from normal society.

titan said:

---

How likely is something this sensible to actually occur though? Would it be allowed. There are so many things imposed that it only seems mass public action could correct.

---

Two points.

First:

Quote:

---

While questioning Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, Thomas asked "what role" the federal district court's block on the state's initial map "play[ed] in development of" the new map that included a second black-majority district. The state solicitor general disclosed that the court's order is the "only reason" Louisiana drew a new map.
"Justice Thomas, [that court decision] is the only reason [this new map] exists," Aguiñaga said. "We fought tooth and nail in the Robinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second majority-black district. As you know, under protest, we drew [the new map] because the threat was that the federal courts would do it if we didn't."

---

Second:

Quote:

---

After a lengthy back and forth attempting to pin down her position on the matter, Gorsuch noted how "sometimes federal district courts order maps" and that it appears that what Nelson is arguing is that "sometimes [it is] acceptable for a federal district court to order a map that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race."
Rejecting Gorsuch's "formulation," Nelson claimed that "states and plaintiffs, as they put forth illustrative maps, cannot put forth maps that discriminate and that use race in an excessive fashion." "The only actor that has broader leeway," she continued, "are states because we give states breathing room" and "wide latitude in order to balance their political interests and concerns."
"So, federal district courts can't discriminate on the basis of race in remedies, but states can?" Gorsuch asked, to which Nelson replied, "Federal district courts can only order maps that are constitutional, and, again, the constitutional boundaries are between [Thornburg v. Gingles] and [Shaw v. Reno]."
This prompted Gorsuch to ask, "You said states 'have more breathing room.' So, do they have the 'breathing room' to intentionally discriminate on the basis of race?"

---

LINK

titan said:

---

How likely is something this sensible to actually occur though? Would it be allowed. There are so many things imposed that it only seems mass public action could correct.

---

Based on oral arguments it appears all but certain at this point

It's going down. 6-3. Just a matter of the opinions.

Aglaw97 said:

---

It's going down. 6-3. Just a matter of the opinions.

---

Down altogether? Or have a new modified test?

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be ruled unconstitutional but just can't see Roberts doing that.

Thanks! That does show the distinction well. Gotta hope this happens.

aggiehawg said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

It's going down. 6-3. Just a matter of the opinions.

---

Down altogether? Or have a new modified test?

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be ruled unconstitutional but just can't see Roberts doing that.

---

Don't think it matters. If it's the modified test then I think it will be the one Kavanaugh was pushing, which will essentially neuter the statute anyways.

And while I agree on Roberts, he's historically been very conservative in his views of race based cases. The length of the oral argument is what leads me to believe it won't be surprising to see it struck down altogether. The nuanced test will essentially be the same thing.

No way Roberts has the gonads. Obamacare was open and shut too!

During one notable exchange, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh probed Nelson on the issue of an "end point" to the use of race-based remedies in policy areas like redistricting. He specifically noted how the Supreme Court's prior precedents in "a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time … but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point."

It's been 60 years (since 65)… 50 years should have been the end point!

"Reconstruction" States and the Qty of Black House Reps: AL (2), AR (0), FL (3), GA (5), LA (2), MS (1), NC (3), SC (1), TN (0), TX (4 - TX-18 represented by Shield Jackson Lee and Sylvester Turner is currently Vacant).

Using Census.gov maps for the 119th Congress --

Below are the "White/Black" demographics of these districts. 2 of the districts are represented by Republicans who are NOT members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Of Note: Hispanics/Latinos are NOT separated as a distinct race therefore only the White/Black racial groups are provided.

AL-02: 41.30% W, 50.30% B
AL-07: 39.20% W, 52.80% B
FL-10: 39.70% W, 26.40% B - Orlando
FL-19: 70.80% W, 6.30% B - Republican Byron Donalds
FL-20: 22.80% W, 51.0% B
FL-24: 23.10% W, 41.50% B
GA-02: 38.60% W, 50.00% B
GA-04: 20.20% W, 46.80% B
GA-05: 32.40% W, 48.80% B
GA-06: 28.80% W, 51.10% B
GA-13: 23.00% W, 52.20% B
LA-02: 34.80% W, 49.80% B
LA-06: 37.20% W, 52.4% B
MS-02: 30.90% W, 64.30% B
NC-01: 49.00% W, 38.70% B
NC-04: 54.40% W, 19.30% B - College Triangle of Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill
NC-12: 36.50% W, 35.80% B
SC-06: 42.80% W, 47.9% B
TX-09: 18.70% W, 36.30% B - Al Green
TX-18: 23.00% W, 30.20% B - Vacant
TX-30: 23.80% W, 39.80% B - Jasmine Crockett
TX-33: 20.30% W, 19.20% B - Marc Veasey
TX-38: 55.00% W, 11.10% B - Republican Wesley Hunt
VA-03: 41.10% W, 42.40% B
VA-04: 43.30% W, 42.10% B

NC-01 and NC-04 stand out as abnormalities as most are "Majority-Minority" districts.

74Ag1 said:

---

Great news!!!!
Starts the End of Democrat party
Hope same for Senate

---

…communist party
FIFY

Why 50 years?

H2Ag said:

---

No way Roberts has the gonads. Obamacare was open and shut too!

---

Roberts is historically against any race based considerations. He's very conservative in that regard. He authored the majority opinion in the Harvard affirmative action case.

Logos Stick said:

---

Why 50 years?

---

Trying to make the point that it's been 60 years
10-20 should have been enough
50 is half of 100
The 65 law addressed poll tax, voter discrimination because of testing, etc.
Time to fix it.

InfantryAg said:

---

If we just didn't count people illegally in the country, the dems would be a semi-permanent minority.

To win any elections, the left wing of the dems would be relegated back to their corner with all the other freaks. Relegated back to communist/ socialist/ anarchist/ fascist / white supremacist land, away from normal society.

---

I thought this case is in front of the supreme court

aggiehawg said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

It's going down. 6-3. Just a matter of the opinions.

---

Down altogether? Or have a new modified test?

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be ruled unconstitutional but just can't see Roberts doing that.

---

From what I inferred from the oral (note - that's two points of potential failure to anything typed hereafter) a new test seems like the angle that Kav wants. One which basically says that accusers need to demonstrate that race was a deliberate factor and provide a map which better accomplishes the legitimate political purposes of the majority party.

Personally it sounds overly complicated for stupid purposes. Just decouple equal protections to cast a vote from the overextension that it's illegal discrimination to get disparate results. Gut it deeply enough that it brings us back to solid reasoning. If congress wants to dictate what must be on the ballot they can pass a different law to that effect.

titan said:

---

How likely is something this sensible to actually occur though? Would it be allowed. There are so many things imposed that it only seems mass public action could correct.

---

I don't know which way the vote will go but I'm certain that Roberts will write the narrowest opinion possible.

Quote:

---

The nuanced test will essentially be the same thing.

---

That's the worst. Agenda driven judges have wriggle room.

Roberts is compromised.

But I see the ruling as being how much Trump 2.0 has in counter.