(10-18-2025 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you discount the ‘take race into account *only when* someone shows discrimination’ that VRA sec 2 reads and is enforced for “never take race into account”?

Not speaking for anyone else here…. But absolutely I think this should be ‘discounted’. Let’s start with this…

The only reason democrats fight so hard for blacks is because 90+% of them generally vote for democrats. No other demographic…. Certainly not whites split that hard or that reliably for ANY party. The law as written provides a clear incentive and advantage for democrats to claim racism… with zero downside for doing so….. so that’s what they do.

If the black vote split anything close to 50/50…. Or maybe even 60/40 or 70/30, I think race based gerrymandering would cease to be a ‘thing’. The reason you see it is because it assures a democrat…. nOT because it assures a black person. There would still be party based gerrymandering…. But not race based.

I’ll say it in a different way….. black people voting for a black candidate is no different from white people voting for a white candidate. Maybe it happens because of racism…. Maybe it happens because of issues. How the hell can you factually demonstrate that a candidate was elected or not because of racism and not because of anything else, which could include culture/priorities which can be tied to race, but are not generally racism. When a white majority elects a person of color, the one thing you cannot demonstrate statistically is racism… which happens probably EVERY time a black Republican is elected. With black voters splitting 90/10 by party, having elected officials similarly split 90/10 towards democrats should honestly be unexpected. I’ve read that something like 16% of democrats officials are black…. And 2% of republican officials are black. That’s surprisingly close to 90/10…. And NOBODY draws districts to ensure that black Republicans are elected.

The second point would be, why is it ‘ok’ to take race into account to help minorities in response to someone taking race into account to harm them? Why isn’t the answer to simply eliminate the harm? I THINK that’s OOs point.

(10-26-2025 09:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The second point would be, why is it ‘ok’ to take race into account to help minorities in response to someone taking race into account to harm them? Why isn’t the answer to simply eliminate the harm? I THINK that’s OOs point.

Close, but now we have gone down this path for decades of trying to correct past discrimination with current, but different, discrimination. At best it should have been a temporary fix, but it appears to me to be for forever. Will we still be paying for the sins of 1850 in 2250? 2650? 3250? If it is up to the future Al Sharptons of the world, the answer is yes.

So, for those advocating and fighting to continue race-based discrimination, when will it be deemed to have been corrected? Never?

Or alternatively, what will be the signs that enough is enough? When we elect a black President? When we appoint multiple black Supreme Court Justices? When we have black CEOs, Generals, and Admirals? Already there, so what else can we take as a sign that the US is now color blind? I think the answer here is also, Never will we deem that we have done enough.

If the USA is to someday become a country with no race based discrimination, then we need at some point to start phasing race based discrimination out, rather than codifying it in our laws.

JMHO. Emphasis on the M.

(10-26-2025 09:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you discount the ‘take race into account *only when* someone shows discrimination’ that VRA sec 2 reads and is enforced for “never take race into account”?

Not speaking for anyone else here…. But absolutely I think this should be ‘discounted’. Let’s start with this…

The only reason democrats fight so hard for blacks is because 90+% of them generally vote for democrats. No other demographic…. Certainly not whites split that hard or that reliably for ANY party. The law as written provides a clear incentive and advantage for democrats to claim racism… with zero downside for doing so….. so that’s what they do.

If the black vote split anything close to 50/50…. Or maybe even 60/40 or 70/30, I think race based gerrymandering would cease to be a ‘thing’. The reason you see it is because it assures a democrat…. nOT because it assures a black person. There would still be party based gerrymandering…. But not race based.

I’ll say it in a different way….. black people voting for a black candidate is no different from white people voting for a white candidate. Maybe it happens because of racism…. Maybe it happens because of issues. How the hell can you factually demonstrate that a candidate was elected or not because of racism and not because of anything else, which could include culture/priorities which can be tied to race, but are not generally racism. When a white majority elects a person of color, the one thing you cannot demonstrate statistically is racism… which happens probably EVERY time a black Republican is elected. With black voters splitting 90/10 by party, having elected officials similarly split 90/10 towards democrats should honestly be unexpected. I’ve read that something like 16% of democrats officials are black…. And 2% of republican officials are black. That’s surprisingly close to 90/10…. And NOBODY draws districts to ensure that black Republicans are elected.

The second point would be, why is it ‘ok’ to take race into account to help minorities in response to someone taking race into account to harm them? Why isn’t the answer to simply eliminate the harm? I THINK that’s OOs point.

When dealing with racial discrimination, one kind of invariably *has* to take race into account.

Under VRA Sec 2, *when* there is a showing of racial discrimination, there should be a remedy. Rather hard to form a remedy for the specific Constitutional action of 'discriminat[ion] based on race' absent consideration of race. More specifically, in terms of *voting* or *representative* discrimination -- it becomes harder. A state *cannot* mandate the election of a person of a particular race. The best alternative is to *create* the environment where one can.

Finally -- compare the outcome to the original discrimination (again, that *has* to be proven up). The original issue is that the state created a situation that *minimizes* the chance of a person in the affected minority to be elected. The remedy is to *create* an environment where one most likely can. Equal and opposite. And to belabor the point -- it MUST be proven up for that to happen. If/when there is no discriminatory structure, the Gingles test fails, and the plaintiff walks away empty handed in their pursuit of one or more majority minority districts. I believe 'self-correcting' is the apt term here.

In short, one cannot legislate, nor litigate, thoughts that go into discriminatory outcomes. One can only legislate, or litigate the effects those thoughts -- that is the *product* of racial discrimination.

Legislation doesnt fit the bill, because it does exactly what you complain of. A fixed set outcome.

Litigation is preferable, especially one that is legislatively allowed.

Again "IF AND WHEN" a plaintiff shows an action or product of discrimination (in the VRA explicitly for voting), ONLY THEN may an appropriate districting remedy be applied.

When you understand the scheme -- when there is no discriminatory outcome, there are no successful pieces of litigation. The issue has its own 'timer' built into it.

I have zero problem with that.

Your entire italicized seemingly bypasses the *entire* structure, purpose, and goal of VRA Sec 2.

Your entire underlined is simply irrelevant. First, I dont think the Democratic party is ever a plaintiff that seeks remedy under the law. Please show me where they are.

Second, the law is written in a manner that it is irrelevant whether 'blacks vote Democratic', or 'El Paso white people vite 75% Republican' -- or any combination you wish to think of.

The simple fact is that the *predicate* to VRA Sec 2 is showing, by a detailed test, that a group is being discriminated in their vote. End of story. When that predicate isnt met -- no majority minority districts. End of story.

What your text above *does* do is highlight the problems of Sec 5 of the VRA. Which is now moot -- struck down. A section that relied on certain jurisdictions' history, and switched the presumption from Sec 2s 'the plaintiff needs to prove' to 'a state needs to prove that their districts are copacetic, or that they serve a purpose that trumps the reqts of the 14th and 15th amendment.

And yeah, if a group can actually show discrimination in voting, I have zero problem with forcing the state to redraw their districts as to reduce that discrimination to at least 'acceptable' levels.

And I dont care if the minority group is Blacks in Louisiana, whites in El Paso, or Puerto Ricans in Miami-Dade.

And I dont care if the 'third party' 'beneficiary' is democratic, republican, or (for the sake of exaggeration) the US Communist party.

In short, I take your opening paragraph to be a rationale for minimize a statute that enforces the voting issues in the 14th and 15th amendment, by tying it to a political side. Unfortunately, it is the racial discrimination in voting that is literally a Constitutional issue, and not the group that receives the largesse of some portion of activity under VRA Sec. 2.

If you wish to make political party a group subject to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, then your first paragraphs might be on point and opportune. Last I saw they are not. And have been delineated specifically in voting issues by SCOTUS to be excluded for such equal protection. And from my perspective your first paragraphs reduce to 'hey lets curtail a remedy available as a Constitutional right to racial minorities IF AND WHEN they show discrimination because the outcome in most of them falls to a political stance you oppose.'

If your internal calculus thinks that VRA Sec. 2 should be discounted because 1 party *might* be advanced, then I would posit that your stance on actual importance to the 14th and 15th amendments, and what it means to *every* minority (yes, even whites in El Paso) is way off track in that balance in the light of the authors of the Civil War Amendments. And, quite honestly, those civil war amendments are a cornerstone of defining our society as one that is (and in my opinion should be) color blind. And in that vein I have *zero* problems with laws that allow enforcement of those amendments in the manner that the current effective portion of the VRA we are discussing provides. None. Zero. Nada.

In that light, I would suggest that the Constitutional right aspect should win every single time. Even if I dont like the political result that you use to explicitly discount the statute in the underlined.

And to your last sentence -- the route to eliminating harm occurs with the remedy provided by the VRA Sec 2. And no, I am not content to simply declare disrcimination over, and remove an effective and viable remedy. *Especially* when that remedy has within it the *requirement* that a breach, defined specifically by a germane and effective elements of a test, has to have occurred to effectuate the remedy.

(10-26-2025 11:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The second point would be, why is it ‘ok’ to take race into account to help minorities in response to someone taking race into account to harm them? Why isn’t the answer to simply eliminate the harm? I THINK that’s OOs point.

Close, but now we have gone down this path for decades of trying to correct past discrimination with current, but different, discrimination. At best it should have been a temporary fix, but it appears to me to be for forever. Will we still be paying for the sins of 1850 in 2250? 2650? 3250? If it is up to the future Al Sharptons of the world, the answer is yes.

So, for those advocating and fighting to continue race-based discrimination, when will it be deemed to have been corrected? Never?

Or alternatively, what will be the signs that enough is enough? When we elect a black President? When we appoint multiple black Supreme Court Justices? When we have black CEOs, Generals, and Admirals? Already there, so what else can we take as a sign that the US is now color blind? I think the answer here is also, Never will we deem that we have done enough.

If the USA is to someday become a country with no race based discrimination, then we need at some point to start phasing race based discrimination out, rather than codifying it in our laws.

JMHO. Emphasis on the M.

To the italicized --
A race neutral law that provides a remedy for a discriminated group IF AND WHEN they show such discrimination is a high price to pay?

More broadly -- Aside from your general angst and general rhetoric, what specific laws and what specific actions spark your comments above?

Note the word 'specific'.

(10-27-2025 04:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When dealing with racial discrimination, one kind of invariably *has* to take race into account.

Nope.
As I suggested and you apparently didn't follow because you went in a different direction.... States with only one rep will vote for a single person... meaning that race is not remotely taken into account... is that in your mind a case of racial discrimination? I wouldn't think so.

Quote:Under VRA Sec 2, *when* there is a showing of racial discrimination, there should be a remedy.

[quote]A state *cannot* mandate the election of a person of a particular race. The best alternative is to *create* the environment where one can.

And yet that is precisely what they often do. They might not SAY that's what they're doing... but when you draw the lines to ensure that you have a majority minority district... especially a majority singular minority district... that has the same impact.

Quote:Finally -- compare the outcome to the original discrimination (again, that *has* to be proven up). The original issue is that the state created a situation that *minimizes* the chance of a person in the affected minority to be elected. The remedy is to *create* an environment where one most likely can.

Couldn't disagree more. You literally described the remedy as being 'different' discrimination. The remedy is more like it would be for a state with a single representative...

Quote:In short, one cannot legislate, nor litigate, thoughts that go into discriminatory outcomes. One can only legislate, or litigate the effects those thoughts -- that is the *product* of racial discrimination.

If you're arguing that this is the current situation, I'd agree. If you're arguing that this is the ONLY way it can be, I disagree.

If you put ever county in the state and told a computer to ONLY look at voting age population and to design, based on some criteria like zip codes or counties or physical boundaries like rivers and NOTHING ELSE to create 'this many' contiguous districts, and perhaps to use the fewest counties in each district possible, the computer easily could... and while certainly some of those districts would be more or less 'minority' than others, the question of race would have NEVER entered that equation, and IMO, that is how it could and should be.

My problem with what California is doing (and there are a few other states that have the same issue or even worse) is that you have a state that is say 40% Republican and yet Republicans only hold about 22% of the seats... and then to top it off... they passed a bipartisan law to create a bipartisan commission to manage the lines, and then on a partisan basis, passed a law to 'suspend' that 'this time' to reduce the percentage to only 10%. Those aren't the actual numbers... don't care to look it up right now but I'm in the ballpark. It is perfectly normal for say a state that votes 40% for one party to have a somewhat different makeup... say like 50% or even 30%.... but as I recall, there is ONE state that voted almost 40% for Republicans with iirc, 9 house members/EC votes... and only ONE of them is a Republican.

The focus on race presumes that the political differences are race based.

and that to me on its face is racism.

Quote:When you understand the scheme -- when there is no discriminatory outcome, there are no successful pieces of litigation. The issue has its own 'timer' built into it.

I have zero problem with that.

You have more faith in judges being 'less racist' than the rest of the population than I do.

Quote:Your entire italicized seemingly bypasses the *entire* structure, purpose, and goal of VRA Sec 2.

Yep... I disagree with the purpose and goal of the VRA. Not the STATED goal or what supporters will claim it does, but what it ACTUALLY does. We've literally given power to racist actions.... and used the excuse (you did it yourself) that the solution to past racism is future racism.

Quote:Your entire underlined is simply irrelevant. First, I dont think the Democratic party is ever a plaintiff that seeks remedy under the law. Please show me where they are.

Read more carefully. As I said, no other minority is as 'strong' for a party as Blacks... and they are +/-90%. If this weren't the case, Democrats wouldn't be advocating for black districts. They do it because it elects members of their party.

Period.

Quote:Second, the law is written in a manner that it is irrelevant whether 'blacks vote Democratic', or 'El Paso white people vite 75% Republican' -- or any combination you wish to think of.

Lol.... Notice that you didn't say El Paso black people vote democrat. The purpose and design of the house is to represent physical areas and commonalities based on geography and geographic identities... not on race or gender or religion or anything else.

The bottom line is that ANY apportionment based on race is discrimination. ... and that intentionally diminishing OR embellishing their power is racism... by definition. Districts should be drawn 'blind' to race.

Quote:What your text above *does* do is highlight the problems of Sec 5 of the VRA. Which is now moot -- struck down.

not in my opinion.... It is the preclearance requirement that was struck down... and not section 5 itself. As usual, I'm looking at this as 'what does the ideal outcome look like'.... while you seem to be looking at it as a 'how do we make what we have better within the existing confines'. If we all want to get 'there', no matter where 'there' is... I am confident that we can get 'there'. If instead we all have to agree on how we get there (and that is how I interpret your comments) I completely lose confidence.

Again, my 'challenge' is with race being used to draw lines AT ALL. I am sympathetic to the issue and would like to dig deeper into it to ensure we don't repeat past problems...... but IMO, much like how political programs designed to lift people out of poverty will disproportionally impact blacks while numerically impacting more whites... I feel that the issue of poverty is vastly more of an issue that needs to be solved than the issue of 'black people'. Or perhaps said more like others have... I am more concerned about poor and disadvantaged people than I am about ANY race.



In short, I take your opening paragraph to be a rationale for minimize a statute that enforces the voting issues in the 14th and 15th amendment, by tying it to a political side.


Nope. I'm saying Democrats have done this. Not the party of today who only benefits from it, but the one of the 60's and forward.

Again, tell me how a single representative state could EVER violate the VRA, or how asking a computer, that is NOT given race data and instead bases its decisions solely on population, geography and perhaps physical boundaries... could EVER be guilty of engaging in racism?

Quote:If your internal calculus thinks that VRA Sec. 2 should be discounted because 1 party *might* be advanced....

Not at all. I'm saying that it IS being used to advance a party. Republicans generally disperse blacks to minimize their impact and Democrats generally combine them to maximize it.

Quote: And no, I am not content to simply declare disrcimination over, and remove an effective and viable remedy. *Especially* when that remedy has within it the *requirement* that a breach, defined specifically by a germane and effective elements of a test, has to have occurred to effectuate the remedy.

I think you underestimate the 'sneakiness' of politicians who, when given decades, will manipulate even the best intended laws. The remedy is neither effective nor viable if it engaged in dividing people based on race. While lots of people accept that reverse racism or 'make-up calls' have value, I think they currently cause more problems than they solve. I think black people are more encouraged to live in black neighborhoods and participate in black culture and to eschew white people who would like to embrace it than any other race. I think that is a result of this, and it flies in the face of our 'melting pot'.

(11-19-2025 04:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 04:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When dealing with racial discrimination, one kind of invariably *has* to take race into account.

Nope.
As I suggested and you apparently didn't follow because you went in a different direction.... States with only one rep will vote for a single person... meaning that race is not remotely taken into account... is that in your mind a case of racial discrimination? I wouldn't think so.

Two points --

1. your original question is simply this: "why is it ‘ok’ to take race into account to help minorities in response to someone taking race into account to harm them? "

The answer in general is what i point out above. When dealing or remediating racial discrimination, the issue of race is fundamental to the wrong at hand. Simply ignoring race in the face of actual racial discrimination is simply asking to us to ignore the problematic behavior.

2. Your example really has nothing to do with the question asked, and answered. And specifically, under the VRA, a single Congressional district state simply falls out as moot given the tests in the statute and at law. That is, under a single Congressional district state, proportionally speaking a minority that votes in a manner apart from the majority in that state is being suppressed to the grand total of -- zero.

Quote:Under VRA Sec 2, *when* there is a showing of racial discrimination, there should be a remedy.

Quote:A state *cannot* mandate the election of a person of a particular race. The best alternative is to *create* the environment where one can.

And yet that is precisely what they often do. They might not SAY that's what they're doing... but when you draw the lines to ensure that you have a majority minority district... especially a majority singular minority district... that has the same impact.

So what?

(To be consistent -- I suggest we actually use the terms of art at law. 'Majority minority' means majority of *one* minority group. And coalition majority minority for districts that the majority is made up of two or more minorities statewide.)

If the effect is to do that, the wrong under the statute is addressed en toto. And importantly *by* the majority minority in question in that district.

If the effect is to not do that, then the voting rights of the affected groups are the arbiter of the issue.

Both outcomes preserve the issues defined under VRA Sec 2. You have a majority minority (either set from above) having dimished capacity at representation based on districting -- but *allowed* to actually exercise the choice so defined.

Quote:

Quote:Finally -- compare the outcome to the original discrimination (again, that *has* to be proven up). The original issue is that the state created a situation that *minimizes* the chance of a person in the affected minority to be elected. The remedy is to *create* an environment where one most likely can.

Couldn't disagree more. You literally described the remedy as being 'different' discrimination. The remedy is more like it would be for a state with a single representative...

*When* a group is discriminated in the manner of voting, the only practicable solution is to create an environment, if possible based on density, to have the ability to have that group being suppressed exercise their choice.

Your remedy of statewide selection only serves to increase the problem. There is a real manner an issue *why* states and cities are required to have some form of single member districts. Your 'solution' leads to an outcome of the following:

If a majority has 50.01% of voters, and a minority of 49.99% of voters -- your solution with 10 seats is 10 seats majority, no seats minority. Your 'at large' "solution" simply amplifies minority representation problems. That outcome you note and seemingly champion has been studied to death going back 60 years -- and is actually highly detrimental in outcome. Again -- there is a real simple basic issue as to why no city of any substantial size, that has any substantial minority population, is allowed anything more than a handful of 'at large' governance seats.

And yes, the only effective and non-deterministic remedy to *actual* VRA Sec 2 violations is to create an environment by majority minority districts where the defined minority *could* elect someone they wish. Yes -- it is discriminatory to create majority minority districts. But it is the antidote to discrimination that removes voting representation. And when one cannot prove up the issue -- that problem self-corrects.

Quote:

Quote:In short, one cannot legislate, nor litigate, thoughts that go into discriminatory outcomes. One can only legislate, or litigate the effects those thoughts -- that is the *product* of racial discrimination.

If you're arguing that this is the current situation, I'd agree. If you're arguing that this is the ONLY way it can be, I disagree.

If you put ever county in the state and told a computer to ONLY look at voting age population and to design, based on some criteria like zip codes or counties or physical boundaries like rivers and NOTHING ELSE to create 'this many' contiguous districts, and perhaps to use the fewest counties in each district possible, the computer easily could... and while certainly some of those districts would be more or less 'minority' than others, the question of race would have NEVER entered that equation, and IMO, that is how it could and should be.

And Id say the facts stand against you. There are far too many places that have substantial racial minorities that vote apart from the majority. When that disparity is removed -- I would support your position. Right now, I think you are not quite clear as to the underlying problem. There are way too many actual cases in courts over the last 25 years, let alone the last 10 years, that say when you do it as you note above -- there are fundamental problems with the 14th amendment and discrimination in voting under that concept. Again, not for all. But when the plaintiffs prove it up, there really is no more than one solution. Which is the structure of VRA Sec 2 imo.

Quote:My problem with what California is doing (and there are a few other states that have the same issue or even worse) is that you have a state that is say 40% Republican and yet Republicans only hold about 22% of the seats... and then to top it off... they passed a bipartisan law to create a bipartisan commission to manage the lines, and then on a partisan basis, passed a law to 'suspend' that 'this time' to reduce the percentage to only 10%. Those aren't the actual numbers... don't care to look it up right now but I'm in the ballpark. It is perfectly normal for say a state that votes 40% for one party to have a somewhat different makeup... say like 50% or even 30%.... but as I recall, there is ONE state that voted almost 40% for Republicans with iirc, 9 house members/EC votes... and only ONE of them is a Republican.

Texas is equally egregious in the political divide. But you are mixing and matching -- political gerrymandering is wholly allowable. The *second* you include race (or any other protected group under the Constitution), the gerrymander is at that instant suspect. Which comports with the notions of the 14th (and several other amendments).

Note I am not saying it is proper. I find it abhorrent. But your use of political germander has no place under the VRA or under the Constitution. It is wholly allowable.

Quote:The focus on race presumes that the political differences are race based.

and that to me on its face is racism.

To belabor the point already repeatedly made, the issue is three step in nature.

1. Is there a substantial minority (with respect to the numbers of seats available in a governing body) (the parenthetical being the 3rd step).

2. Does that minority vote substantially differently than the majority.

If you fail either prong -- no cigar. The issue under the VRA is that step procedure pretty much in a nutshell.

The issue I read from your critique focuses *only* on racial components. Which in turn leads you to the path of 'computer line drawing' and 'effectively at large elections'. Each of which would tend to enhance the discriminatory effect, if and when proven.

Quote:

Quote:When you understand the scheme -- when there is no discriminatory outcome, there are no successful pieces of litigation. The issue has its own 'timer' built into it.

I have zero problem with that.

You have more faith in judges being 'less racist' than the rest of the population than I do.

Then point us to an egregious reverse racist action by those judges you seemingly are wont to impugn above. I havent seen that.

Quote:

Quote:Your entire italicized seemingly bypasses the *entire* structure, purpose, and goal of VRA Sec 2.

Yep... I disagree with the purpose and goal of the VRA. Not the STATED goal or what supporters will claim it does, but what it ACTUALLY does. We've literally given power to racist actions.... and used the excuse (you did it yourself) that the solution to past racism is future racism.

Again, you simplify that to the point of being somewhat ridiculous. The solution to *present* racist discrimination in voting is to create an environment that *removes* that presently discriminatory structure. And when an aggrieved party cannot show that discriminatory effect, that structure is not put into place.

You wholly ignore the contingent, and by definition temporary, structure of the VRA in your rush to blindly criticize it.

Your italicized is simply a gross generalization of the mechanism. Rhetorically so.

Quote:

Quote:Your entire underlined is simply irrelevant. First, I dont think the Democratic party is ever a plaintiff that seeks remedy under the law. Please show me where they are.

Read more carefully. As I said, no other minority is as 'strong' for a party as Blacks... and they are +/-90%. If this weren't the case, Democrats wouldn't be advocating for black districts. They do it because it elects members of their party.

Period.

And wholly irrelevant under the VRA. Period.

Ose nose -- Dems 'advocate' for black districts. How earth shatteringly important. (end sarcasm). Again, under the legal mechanism -- so what?

And -- I hate to tell you, the places that blacks tend to win in VRA suits are places that have mind numbingly higher incidences of a large proportion of highly cracked black populations relative to the minority population. As an example --- Louisiana has had about a 30 - 45% proportion of black residents since the 1940s.

La has had 6 congressional seats since 1950.

Currently there are 2 black congressmen from Louisiana. Both based in VRA districts. 30% population to 33% representation. Their current attempt reduces the number of black districts to 1.

Prior to 1991, the only black LA congressman was elected in 1895. With only two others being elected (from the same district, mind you) in the 90's.

So do not tell me that voting discrimination doesnt occur, and that it should be ignored when and where it happens.

And honestly, as much as I dont like the policies of the democratic party overall, I have *zero* problem with them 'advocating' for districts in those types of situations.

The issue has really only two sides to the coin. You either advocate for fair representation when discriminatory practices are present, or you dont. In that sense -- count me in on the side of the 14th. As noted elsewhere, I do not care who the discriminated minority is, nor which party 'advocates' for them.

Quote:

Quote:Second, the law is written in a manner that it is irrelevant whether 'blacks vote Democratic', or 'El Paso white people vite 75% Republican' -- or any combination you wish to think of.

Lol.... Notice that you didn't say El Paso black people vote democrat.

That much should be surmised by my list. And for the record, in EP it is Mexican Americans, not blacks. I constructed that list to specifically note I dont give a **** whom the majority votes for. But I am glad that you see something as a 'gotcha' there. Again, the issue is easily surmised by my list.

Quote:The purpose and design of the house is to represent physical areas and commonalities based on geography and geographic identities... not on race or gender or religion or anything else.

And that has to be weighed with and potentially against the equally important *other* Constitutional issues like the 14th. Which *explicitly* *do* deal with race. Again, hate to tell you the post bellum Amendments carry as much weight as that which you promulgate above.

You make a good point about one aspect of the origin and purpose of the House and impact within the Constitution -- all while apparently completely ignoring another portion.

Quote:The bottom line is that ANY apportionment based on race is discrimination. ... and that intentionally diminishing OR embellishing their power is racism... by definition. Districts should be drawn 'blind' to race.

ANd when they are not, the remedy should be one like VRA Sec. 2. You seriously cannot look at the makeup of LA noted above and make your comment above with that fundamentally racial disparity and say that LA should 'simply draw line by computer'. Again, VRA is only available *if* and *when* the plaintiffs *prove* the issue of discrimination in voting practices. And somehow you dont want it around. I find that amazingly short sighted.

Quote:I'm looking at this as 'what does the ideal outcome look like'....

I agree when the ideal outcome is achieved, computer lines are a good first step at district drawing.

We arent there yet. Not at all. The numbers of disparities *presently* are quite honestly staggering.

And even when we are there, I have zero problem with the function of VRA Sec 2 as a remedy *when it is proved up* --- JUST like it is now.

Quote:while you seem to be looking at it as a 'how do we make what we have better within the existing confines'.

Im looking at it in two lenses. First, we are nowhere near 'there' at this point. Second, I have zero problem with having a self-eliminating remedy at hand *when* it happens. Which literally is what Sec. 2 provides right now.

Quote:Again, my 'challenge' is with race being used to draw lines AT ALL.

And I disagree with the notion of simply tossing out a remedy that must be proven up for it to be utlized.

Let me pose a counter issue to you ---- when there is a proven up claim that a minority race has been discriminated against, what *exactly* is your solution? All I have heard from you is tied to 'no racial lines should ever be employed. Ever.' So when there is an infarction -- how do you remedy that under your rubric?

Quote:Again, tell me how a single representative state could EVER violate the VRA,

It cannot. Unfortunately that is a red herring, since only six or seven states meet that magic moment. All the rest have varying issues with the issue of where that line of discrimination occurs. Or if it occurs at all.

That is a smashing already existing solution for AK, WY, ND, DE, MT, SD, VT(iirc), but wholly inapplicable to any other state, let alone any state, county, or city governing body which has to be addressed.

If your references are for a slate of at-large positions -- hate to tell you but the 'slate of at-large' simply amplifies the issues of discrimination. To the point that any governing body in terms of city, county, or state governing bodies are wholly precluded at the start from using at-large elections as the selection process in the bulk of the governing bodies. Cities and counties might be allowed a small number of at-large county commissioners or aldermen, but the use of the at-large for more than just a few is simply prima facie improper due to the massive dilutive effects on minorities.

Quote: how asking a computer, that is NOT given race data and instead bases its decisions solely on population, geography and perhaps physical boundaries... could EVER be guilty of engaging in racism?

That computer could very easily achieve a pervasive cracking simply by its own operation. The issue for purposes of VRA Sec 2 isnt 'intentionally discriminating' -- and can be based on non-intentional discrimination. If you think about it, if the issue is only effects, it removes the proverbial 'lordy me, we didnt do the packing every single black into one district *intentionally*' defense as a first blush.

Quote:While lots of people accept that reverse racism or 'make-up calls' have value

I think the above lies at the heart of the disagreement here. 'Make up calls' have *nothing* to do with a VRA Sec 2 analysis. And that same building block is the crux of your stance. Again -- the reason I distinguished Sec 5 (which had everything to do with history and *explicitly* make up calls) from that of Sec 2.

Look, the political messaging on VRA and Sec 2 can absolutely be, and in numerous cases *is* about that -- absolutely. And pretty low when it is. That message is an inflammatory high emotion, low IQ touchstone. And for both sides given the Rs current 'grievance' and 'victimhood' trend.

But there is a massive disconnect between the political messaging and the actual mechanism of VRA Sec 2.

Yes, at some times and places, racial lines must be drawn to create an environment that can correct a present and proven racial voting discrimination infraction. That corrective action is by its own terms self-extinguishing. And not granted at the tip of a hat. And when a decent steady state is in place, then by all means implement your 'blind computer' style. and when those falter, even if by accident, I am firmly for the availability of VRA Sec 2 as a remedy.

'Make up calls' (which you seemingly use as a top level description of the issue of VRA Sec 2) simply are not an apt nor accurate description of the mechanism of VRA Sec 2.

(11-20-2025 12:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. your original question is simply this: "why is it ‘ok’ to take race into account to help minorities in response to someone taking race into account to harm them? "

The answer in general is what i point out above. When dealing or remediating racial discrimination, the issue of race is fundamental to the wrong at hand. Simply ignoring race in the face of actual racial discrimination is simply asking to us to ignore the problematic behavior.

I said that same thing three or four times in different ways... you chose the only one where I juxtaposed help vs harm..... but Where did I say anything about remediation? Is your goal to end racial discrimination, or is it to remediate its ills? I think we're long past a need to remediate racism... and the 'downside' of continuing to focus on remediation is that what was SUPPOSED to be a shield turns into a weapon... and this encourages and sustains division.

Quote:2. Your example really has nothing to do with the question asked, and answered.

Actually it does.... as usual... just not to your perspective on it.

Quote:Under VRA Sec 2, *when* there is a showing of racial discrimination, there should be a remedy.

THIS to me is a complete non-sequiter. First, the remedy IMO is to 'not do that'. It's that simple... and nowhere have I suggested that race should play a part in ANY direction... so the idea that I'm somehow 'against' 'stopping' racial discrimination is false on its face... and uninteresting.

Quote:

Quote:A state *cannot* mandate the election of a person of a particular race. The best alternative is to *create* the environment where one can.

And yet that is precisely what they often do. They might not SAY that's what they're doing... but when you draw the lines to ensure that you have a majority minority district... especially a majority singular minority district... that has the same impact.

So what?[/quote]

If you see this as a 'so what'... then you miss the point or you disagree with it. I don't care what you say is happening... I care what IS happening. Just because you don't SAY that you're mandating the election of a person of a particular race doesn't mean that isn't precisely what you're doing.

I mean, making an entirely white district doesn't MANDATE the election of a white person... but it sure vastly increases the odds. What it DOESN"T do is give either PARTY an advantage. Making a white district in SF is almost assuredly going to give you a Democrat... so will making a black district in SF.

Quote:*When* a group is discriminated in the manner of voting, the only practicable solution is to create an environment, if possible based on density, to have the ability to have that group being suppressed exercise their choice.

Spoken like a true liberal.

WHEN a group is discriminated against on the basis of race, the only practical and sustainable solution is to eliminate race from the equation. You end racism by ending racism. Stop seeing and dividing people as members of a racial group.

Quote:Your remedy of statewide selection only serves to increase the problem. There is a real manner an issue *why* states and cities are required to have some form of single member districts. Your 'solution' leads to an outcome of the following:

You misunderstand my 'solution'. My comparison of it to a single state election is that race plays no part in the criteria.... only state borders. Never did I suggest that the majority would select all the seats... in fact I specifically suggested 1) a computer design the borders based on population and geography only.... so racial discrimination would be impossible.... and 2) that a good indicator of how effective you were would be that in a state that the vote splits 60/40, that the representative makeup was in that ballpark. You took something I mentioned as a strategic comparison and turned it into 'my solution'.... and ignored things I actually mentioned as my 'solution'.

Quote:And Id say the facts stand against you. There are far too many places that have substantial racial minorities that vote apart from the majority. When that disparity is removed -- I would support your position. Right now, I think you are not quite clear as to the underlying problem. There are way too many actual cases in courts over the last 25 years, let alone the last 10 years, that say when you do it as you note above -- there are fundamental problems with the 14th amendment and discrimination in voting under that concept. Again, not for all. But when the plaintiffs prove it up, there really is no more than one solution. Which is the structure of VRA Sec 2 imo.

What difference does it make if a racial minority votes against the majority? As to me not being clear... I think the better response would be that I am concerned with a different issue.

I believe that in the last 25 years, let alone the last 10, that the SHIELD of the VRA has been turned into a weapon. Where black communities have been encouraged to see the gentrification and suburban flight that has been vital to the creation of generational wealth for white families and allowed them to build businesses and live the American dream has been turned into a BAD thing for minorities, where 'white people' are trying to 'destroy our communities' etc etc etc. and created a long-term of not perpetual under class.

Quote:Texas is equally egregious in the political divide.

Nope. They're not balanced, but they're nowhere near many democrat states.

Quote: But you are mixing and matching --

Only because you've turned this into a lecture on the VRA.. which was never my point. The thread I started for this conversation deals with Redistricting and considering race... and literally has nothing to do with the VRA. I'm fine that you've taken it here, but I'm not the one who 'mixed and matched'.

Quote:Currently there are 2 black congressmen from Louisiana. Both based in VRA districts. 30% population to 33% representation. Their current attempt reduces the number of black districts to 1.

Black is not a political party. Race should not play a role in this. ANY time it does, that is racism. I agree that the math works in this case so I'm not complaining about it... but when you have limited numbers, the percentages are hard to match up. if 2 is the only number that is allowed without violating the VRA, then you LITERALLY are mandating racial outcomes in voting, which you said doesnt' happen. You've literally drawn districts to ensure two black representatives.

How many Hispanics are there and how many Hispanic representatives are there? How many Asians? Since that isn't the only protected class, how many disabled people, or Jews or women? HOW 'black' does someone need to be to counted as 'Black' in the apportionment of representative? Can I just 'identify' as black or is there some sort of 23 and me test required? If someone is biracial, do they count twice? I deserve at least three votes if that is the case. That's the thing, Tanq... Even earnest attempts to attach a racial component to voting by definition creates an imbalance somewhere else.

I REALLY don't care what the VRA says which is why I didn't bring it up.

Quote:That much should be surmised by my list. And for the record, in EP it is Mexican Americans, not blacks. I constructed that list to specifically note I dont give a **** whom the majority votes for. But I am glad that you see something there.

Once again, forest:trees. First, no **** on EP and Mexican Americans... I used the example you gave for the same reason you did.... and you missed it.

The thing you REALLY missed is that despite the claim you're trying to quietly present (it may be unintentional, but its there) most whites in EP have Hispanic roots or are not racist against Hispanics and thus most Politicians in El Paso have some percentage of Hispanic in their lineage,... much more than say European. The only non-Hispanic surname I see on a quick glance of the El Paso City COuncil is Mayor Renard Johnson, who is Black.

you picked a horrible example of a place where whites are the majority and minorities need a leg up.

Quote:

Quote:The purpose and design of the house is to represent physical areas and commonalities based on geography and geographic identities... not on race or gender or religion or anything else.

And that has to be weighed with and potentially against the equally important *other* Constitutional issues like the 14th. Which *explicitly* *do* deal with race. Again, hate to tell you the post bellum Amendments carry as much weight as that which you promulgate above.

Quote:Hate to tell YOU but the application is what is flawed. As I asked... what about the disabled, what about Hispanics or Asians? What about Jews or LGBTQ+ or Women?

150 years ago, there was substantial need to 'force' representation. IMO, a black doctor in River Oaks has more in common in terms of what he needs to be successful with a doctor of any other race than they have in common with a poor black person in Allen Parkway Village right next door. And a poor black person in APV has more in common in terms of what he needs from politicians to be successful with a poor Hispanic person in APV.


[quote]
You make a good point about one aspect of the origin and purpose of the House and impact within the Constitution -- all while apparently completely ignoring another portion.

Ignoring it? Or thinking (because I've said it numerous times in numerous ways) that it has been turned from a shield to a weapon, and is actually at least arguably harming the people it claims to be helping?

Quote:[quote]

I'm looking at this as 'what does the ideal outcome look like'....

I agree when the ideal outcome is achieved, computer lines are a good first step at district drawing.

Lol... this is nonsensical. You are suggesting that when politicians stop using their power, that will be a good time to take the power away from them.... when it is obvious that they won't stop using their power until it no longer gives them an advantage.

If your system were working, we wouldn't be 'as far' away as we are. It's not, by your own admission.

Quote:Let me pose a counter issue to you ---- when there is a proven up claim that a minority race has been discriminated against, what *exactly* is your solution?

??? How have you missed this? If you eliminate race from the equation, then it is impossible for a minority race to be discriminated against. No lines would EVER be drawn to deny any race a seat at the table.

You say 'all I have ever heard' and yet you apparently don't understand that just as in a single state with on representative, population and geography are the only determinants of how those votes are apportioned. If the population grows, they may get more representation.

Quote:It cannot. Unfortunately that is a red herring, since only six or seven states meet that magic moment. All the rest have varying issues with the issue of where that line of discrimination occurs. Or if it occurs at all.

Six or 7 states still likely makes it a plurality. So in a state with two reps and 13% black population, how many 'majority minority' districts should there be? What if the black population were 26%... if you put all of them in one district, even though they might live in wildly different parts of their state... they could represent 52% of that district and thus elect one of two reps... so 26% of the population has 50% of the voice?

The point being that I use the single rep state for clarity. and simplicity.. but the idea applies to probably more than half of the states... and THAT only addresses ONE race.... and again, how do you measure race? Is 1/256th enough to qualify?..... can I just identify as a race?? so its not remotely the red herring you claim.

As to the rest of your claim.... this premise is precisely what I am against. It suggests that 'being black' (or Asian or Hispanic or Indian etc) is more important to how you vote or what sort of policies you should support than any other characteristic.... and I reject that premise and have told you why.

IMO, what that does is ENSURE power lies with racial identitoes, which CREATES and does not eliminate or reduce racism. Again, if you have twin brothers who are biracial and one clicks 'black' and the other clicks 'white' on a form, they are both right and will be counted and treated differently... and that is racism. It is racism regardless of whether clicking white or black takes power away or brings it.

Quote:That computer could very easily achieve a pervasive cracking simply by its own operation. The issue for purposes of VRA Sec 2 isnt 'intentionally discriminating' -- and can be based on non-intentional discrimination. If you think about it, if the issue is only effects, it removes the proverbial 'lordy me, we didnt do the packing every single black into one district *intentionally*' defense as a first blush.

Again, you're arguing what the law (or interpretations of it) says... and I'm arguing what it does.

Given my comments about how many people choose to live among people who look like them, it is entirely likely that many minorities would be put in the same district(s).... which gives them decidedly more power than if they are spread across a dozen of them. It ALSO means (going back to my APV example, which I don't claim is a great one, but the purpose should be clear) that a politician that advocates for resurfacing of Allen Parkway is likely addressing the needs of his constituents... while the politician who serves a Gerrymandered district that stretches from West University to Sugarland advocating for a park in Sugarland is ignoring half of his constituents.

The truth is that people tend to live among people who are most likely them in some way. It isn't always race, but it can be. Honestly, it's mostly socio-economic... and that is where politicians should be focused.

Sure, it is possible that the computer spits out something that has issues, so you ask it to run the program again... give you the 'second' best plan... so the VRA is still intact... IF you demonstrate bias.

The difference is, there is no advantage to the computer in ANY outcome... which is not remotely the case for ANY person.

Quote:'Make up calls' (which you seemingly use as a top level description of the issue of VRA Sec 2) simply are not an apt nor accurate description of the mechanism of VRA Sec 2.

Not really. I've been talking about makeup calls since I started this thread. You brought in the VRA and it makes no difference to my position or concerns. Yes, I've continued to talk about it since you introduced the VRA to the conversation, but never did I suggest that the VRA was part of it.

Make-up calls are what might create a situation where one party might think these lines don't violate the VRA and the other party thinks they do... or where one party feels justified in drawing the lines 'here' while the other disagrees. Judges are human and are appointed by politicians... While I won't claim they do the bidding of those who appointed them (since they h-generally couldn't easily remove them if they did) but I think it self evident that politicians would want to appoint people who seem to share a perspective on important issues...

My problem with your argument is that you once again presume that there is a single correct answer or perspective on 'when' discrimination does and does not exist.... and I believe that honest people with different perspectives can disagree on what does and does not meet the threshold for action under the VRA or any other law.

Part of the reason why 'were not there yet' is because we can't even agree on where 'there' is.

To me, 'there' is where race is not a factor in determining how much power you get... and that other factors are.... specifically because I think making race (any race) a source of power amplification is problematic.

(11-20-2025 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:2. Your example really has nothing to do with the question asked, and answered.

Actually it does.... as usual... just not to your perspective on it.

Waving your hands and saying 'there is no problem in a single rep state with the VRA' is actually nonsensical as some approach to the problem.

Quote:

Quote:Under VRA Sec 2, *when* there is a showing of racial discrimination, there should be a remedy.

THIS to me is a complete non-sequiter. First, the remedy IMO is to 'not do that'.

Then you do not understand what the actual harm addressed in the VRA is. The harm is the dilution of voting power. Not necessarily the discrimination. The 'remedy' follows the 'harm'.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:A state *cannot* mandate the election of a person of a particular race. The best alternative is to *create* the environment where one can.

And yet that is precisely what they often do. They might not SAY that's what they're doing... but when you draw the lines to ensure that you have a majority minority district... especially a majority singular minority district... that has the same impact.

So what?

If you see this as a 'so what'... then you miss the point or you disagree with it. I don't care what you say is happening... I care what IS happening. Just because you don't SAY that you're mandating the election of a person of a particular race doesn't mean that isn't precisely what you're doing.[/quote]

If you cannot distinguish the difference between 'creating an environment to minimize the harm' and choose to blindly call that what you do above, I cannot help you.

Quote:I mean, making an entirely white district doesn't MANDATE the election of a white person... but it sure vastly increases the odds. What it DOESN"T do is give either PARTY an advantage. Making a white district in SF is almost assuredly going to give you a Democrat... so will making a black district in SF.

And you keep mixing and matching seemingly at random the issue of a protected group with a non-protected group. Ill will repeat the items required for a successful VRA, all of which you manage to miss when examined in total.

1. A minority majority (of either stripe, including cioalition);
2. sufficient seats in a governing set that is distribute, where the ratio of the minority to population to seats makes a difference;
3. the minority votes substantially differently from the majority;
4. the minority has sufficient density to sustain a district;

and finally -- the minority has a significant deficit in relative representation to the ratio of minorities in the population.

Your solution is seemingly draw lines by computer. Which addresses exactly 0 of items 2, 3, and 4.

Ill step through an example to make it crystal clear.

State A has 10 seats, 70% white, 30% hispanic. Whites vote R 65-35, hispanics vote D 70-30.

State A has exactly 1 hispanic seated. In that case, the sheer stats say that hispanic voting is highly diluted. The damage isnt 'discrimination' -- its the dilution of the vote of the hispanics.

*when* hispanics live in densities that allow logical districts, this outlines a successful VRA situation for hispanic voters.

Blindly running computer lines in no way addresses any remedy that remediates any damage to Hispanic voter dilution.

Quote:

Quote:*When* a group is discriminated in the manner of voting, the only practicable solution is to create an environment, if possible based on density, to have the ability to have that group being suppressed exercise their choice.

Spoken like a true liberal.

WHEN a group is discriminated against on the basis of race, the only practical and sustainable solution is to eliminate race from the equation. You end racism by ending racism. Stop seeing and dividing people as members of a racial group.

Spoken like a true person who doesnt understnad the goal and aim of the VRA Sec 2.

See the condensed example above.

Quote:

Quote:Your remedy of statewide selection only serves to increase the problem. There is a real manner an issue *why* states and cities are required to have some form of single member districts. Your 'solution' leads to an outcome of the following:

You misunderstand my 'solution'. My comparison of it to a single state election is that race plays no part in the criteria.... only state borders.

And immaterial to the issue of the VRA by definition.

Quote:

Quote:And Id say the facts stand against you. There are far too many places that have substantial racial minorities that vote apart from the majority. When that disparity is removed -- I would support your position. Right now, I think you are not quite clear as to the underlying problem. There are way too many actual cases in courts over the last 25 years, let alone the last 10 years, that say when you do it as you note above -- there are fundamental problems with the 14th amendment and discrimination in voting under that concept. Again, not for all. But when the plaintiffs prove it up, there really is no more than one solution. Which is the structure of VRA Sec 2 imo.

What difference does it make if a racial minority votes against the majority?

Because the damage addressed by VRA Sec 2 ISNT discrimination of a race. It is the DILUTION of their vote.

A state that has whites and blacks voting equally as to parties has no basis to support a majority minority district. There is NO DAMAGE to minority voting DILUTION in that case.

The bolded is actually a key and necessary component to the VRA Sec 2. The damage to the VOTING power of minority only occurs when the voting between the majority and minority is different.

I think the bolded is the key to your mislabeling and misapplication of VR Sec. 2.

Quote: As to me not being clear... I think the better response would be that I am concerned with a different issue.

I believe that in the last 25 years, let alone the last 10, that the SHIELD of the VRA has been turned into a weapon. Where black communities have been encouraged to see the gentrification and suburban flight that has been vital to the creation of generational wealth for white families and allowed them to build businesses and live the American dream has been turned into a BAD thing for minorities, where 'white people' are trying to 'destroy our communities' etc etc etc. and created a long-term of not perpetual under class.

I agree with the above that the political messaging on VRA 2 is horribly toxic. From both sides. And both sides seemingly misrepresent the **** out of it to make their political points.

Quote:

Quote: But you are mixing and matching --

Only because you've turned this into a lecture on the VRA.. which was never my point. The thread I started for this conversation deals with Redistricting and considering race... and literally has nothing to do with the VRA.

One cannot decouple redistricting and race from VRA. Especially when VRA Sec 2 is used inaccurately as a whipping boy.

Quote:I'm fine that you've taken it here, but I'm not the one who 'mixed and matched'.

You decided to use a purely political issue (i.e. shaping of districts by political bent) as your example of a bad thing. Shaping districts by politics and shaping by race are wholly different --- one is perfectly legal, while being wholly incorrect (imo), while the other issue is one that *requires* reference to both the Civil War amendments (which you wholly missed in your original post where you stated there was nothing in the original Constitution on it, thus you felt should be ignored), *and* to the VRA provisions.

Trying to discuss districting and race without reference in any manner to the Civil War amendments or to the VRA is simply bordering on being oblivious to the roles of each in that specific question.

Quote:How many Hispanics are there and how many Hispanic representatives are there? How many Asians? Since that isn't the only protected class, how many disabled people, or Jews or women?

Nowhere near enough to hit the threshold in LA relative to the number of seats. And further, the issue is the 14th, not others. I suggest you look at the listing in the 14th 15th and 16th before willy nilly adding other protected classes as part of your answer. Or just add extraneous issue to the mix as you do above.

Quote:HOW 'black' does someone need to be to counted as 'Black' in the apportionment of representative? Can I just 'identify' as black or is there some sort of 23 and me test required? If someone is biracial, do they count twice? I deserve at least three votes if that is the case. That's the thing, Tanq... Even earnest attempts to attach a racial component to voting by definition creates an imbalance somewhere else.

Then I suggest you champion for the removal of the Civil War Amendments. I know you want to ignore the word 'race', or 'color', or 'national origin'. If that is the goal, then start your PAC to remoeve the 14th 15th and 16th amendments.

Otherwise, hate to tell you, but that is the foundational law at the present. Bummer for you.

Quote:

Quote:That much should be surmised by my list. And for the record, in EP it is Mexican Americans, not blacks. I constructed that list to specifically note I dont give a **** whom the majority votes for. But I am glad that you see something there.

Once again, forest:trees. First, no **** on EP and Mexican Americans... I used the example you gave for the same reason you did.... and you missed it.

You actually made up an extraneous one. A shallow one that missed the point my list made.

I dont give a fk how many blacks in EP. It is an empty comment that has zero relation (except perhaps for obfuscation) to the specific items I placed in that list.

Quote:The thing you REALLY missed is that despite the claim you're trying to quietly present (it may be unintentional, but its there) most whites in EP have Hispanic roots or are not racist against Hispanics and thus most Politicians in El Paso have some percentage of Hispanic in their lineage,... much more than say European. The only non-Hispanic surname I see on a quick glance of the El Paso City COuncil is Mayor Renard Johnson, who is Black.

Glad you are now the board local genealogy and population race studies expert here. Imagine that.

Quote:you picked a horrible example of a place where whites are the majority and minorities need a leg up.

Im so sorry that the example failed in your eyes. But it is the example. An example where whites are the minority. Bummer for you.

Quote:

Quote:[quote]
The purpose and design of the house is to represent physical areas and commonalities based on geography and geographic identities... not on race or gender or religion or anything else.

And that has to be weighed with and potentially against the equally important *other* Constitutional issues like the 14th. Which *explicitly* *do* deal with race. Again, hate to tell you the post bellum Amendments carry as much weight as that which you promulgate above.

Quote:Hate to tell YOU but the application is what is flawed. As I asked... what about the disabled, what about Hispanics or Asians? What about Jews or LGBTQ+ or Women?

When you show the group is covered in the language of the 14th (many of yours above are not, but please make up some more seat of your pants examples that arent accurate), and show a damage to voting dilution relative to the number of seats in play, you get into the arena. But again, you demonstrate a wholly shallow pool of background in the VRA when you decide to name minority groups in a higgledy piggledy fashion.

In short, and being diplomatic, your simple throwing of rando groups against the wall as some master stroke counterpoint simply tells me you have very little knowledge or background in the mechanism actually in VRA 2.

Quote:[quote]
You make a good point about one aspect of the origin and purpose of the House and impact within the Constitution -- all while apparently completely ignoring another portion.

Ignoring it? Or thinking (because I've said it numerous times in numerous ways) that it has been turned from a shield to a weapon, and is actually at least arguably harming the people it claims to be helping?

Then I suggest forming the Committee Ham Advocating Removal of the 14th. CHARF for short.

Until that happens, race is grouping that cannot be discriminated. And when the minority blocs show different than the majority voting blocs, you have damage to another fundamental right while violating a first fundamental right.

Knock yourself out.

And I agree with the political messaging around it is a problem. The left uses it as victimhood petard, and the right uses it in the reverse victimhood petard. And when the mechanisms are mischaracterized as 'atonement for the past' or 'makeup calls', I find that just as ignorant as the messaging from the left.


As for me, I dont have a problem with having a self-extinguishing color blind remedy in the bag. Many on the right see that differently.

Quote:

Quote:Let me pose a counter issue to you ---- when there is a proven up claim that a minority race has been discriminated against, what *exactly* is your solution?

??? How have you missed this? If you eliminate race from the equation, then it is impossible for a minority race to be discriminated against. No lines would EVER be drawn to deny any race a seat at the table.

You actually dodged the question by saying the predicate couldn't ever happen. Care to retry?

Quote:You say 'all I have ever heard' and yet you apparently don't understand that just as in a single state with on representative, population and geography are the only determinants of how those votes are apportioned. If the population grows, they may get more representation.

This boils down to 'one rep states dont have this and they have simple geographical limits' One rep states dont have the issue because it is mathematically impossible, not because of the presence of geographical limits.

Quote:Six or 7 states still likely makes it a plurality. So in a state with two reps and 13% black population, how many 'majority minority' districts should there be? What if the black population were 26%... if you put all of them in one district, even though they might live in wildly different parts of their state... they could represent 52% of that district and thus elect one of two reps... so 26% of the population has 50% of the voice?

I suggest you actually read up on the mechanism of the VRA 2 first -- that is before firing off your litany of rhetorical 'whadabouts'.

None of your comments above make an iota of sense with the bald numbers you think are important above with the actual mechanisms of VRA 2.

Quote:

Quote:That computer could very easily achieve a pervasive cracking simply by its own operation. The issue for purposes of VRA Sec 2 isnt 'intentionally discriminating' -- and can be based on non-intentional discrimination. If you think about it, if the issue is only effects, it removes the proverbial 'lordy me, we didnt do the packing every single black into one district *intentionally*' defense as a first blush.

Again, you're arguing what the law (or interpretations of it) says... and I'm arguing what it does.

Actually -- you are not. Not by a long shot.

Quote:

Quote:'Make up calls' (which you seemingly use as a top level description of the issue of VRA Sec 2) simply are not an apt nor accurate description of the mechanism of VRA Sec 2.

Not really. I've been talking about makeup calls since I started this thread. You brought in the VRA and it makes no difference to my position or concerns. Yes, I've continued to talk about it since you introduced the VRA to the conversation, but never did I suggest that the VRA was part of it.

Hate to tell you, at the outset you claimed there was no issue in the original Constitution on this as a rationale for your comments on doing away with the VRA style remedies and race / district issues.

Unfortunately you dint bother to note the presence of the post Civil War Amendment that do make it part of our foundation.

And also hate to tell you, that those Constitutional provisions and the VRA are pretty much required to be considered. Especially when the original poster noted that a basis for their belief that the issue should be shelved was that it isnt a concern within the original Constitution.

Quote:My problem with your argument is that you once again presume that there is a single correct answer or perspective on 'when' discrimination does and does not exist.... and I believe that honest people with different perspectives can disagree on what does and does not meet the threshold for action under the VRA or any other law.

Ill take it that my very detailed issues on LA dont rise to that level. Cool cool. I find them pretty starkly persuasive with regard to damage to voting rights based on discrimination.

Wash, rinse, and repeat across most southern states at the present.

Your response to that very detailed outline there is to simply delete it from the conversation I see. Again, cool cool. If you wish to talk about facts and instances, instead of broad rhetorical flourishes as you do above, I have zero issue.

No, I think your comments on what meet the threshold under the VRA denote a very limited idea of what the mechanism is, and/ or entails. Criminy, you thought the issue was simply 'discrimination of races' -- and had to ask 'what does the issue of whether the minority votes with the majority have to do with anything.' When that is a key metric in the VRA mechanism, and the definition of whether minority VOTING has been damaged.

Again the bolded is nonsensical with regard to the VRA. The issue isnt discrimination based on race. The issue is whether minority voting rights have been diminished based on discriminatory practice.

Which is a step for step definition of your original paean to the question of race and districting, mind you.

===========

Lastly, Im flummoxed by some of your comments. You keep saying that the VRA isnt what you intended to discuss. In fact, your discussion is "Considering race in redistricting". And in the initial post flatly state that the issue isnt in the original Constitution, and thus shouldnt be an issue.

But you dont seem to realize that the *sole* and *only* mechanism that is currently driving 'Race in redistricting' is in fact the VRA. SO somehow the major (read 'sole') mechanism that drives 'race in redistricting' isnt one that seems to you to be a major issue in this discussion, nor really should, and seems to you to be an ancillary byproduct. Let alone that your original post takes a pretty sharp hit to the jaw when it doesnt bother to consider the Civil War Amendments. So I am fairly perplexed at your wish to *not* discuss the actual mechanisms of the sole driver of the issue. And perplexed that while being a major critic of it, you dont seem to be very well schooled in the actual mechanisms of it.

(11-20-2025 10:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Waving your hands and saying 'there is no problem in a single rep state with the VRA' is actually nonsensical as some approach to the problem.

Good thing I didn't do that. I REALLY wish you'd stop 'making up' what I've said so that you can make yourself feel smarter arguing with the 'idiot' you've created.

The issue... the topic of this thread... is racism and Redistricting. In a single rep state, there IS no Redistricting, and thus race has no place to be an issue in Redistricting.. It's honestly that simple.

Quote:

Quote:Under VRA Sec 2, *when* there is a showing of racial discrimination, there should be a remedy.

THIS to me is a complete non-sequiter. First, the remedy IMO is to 'not do that'.

Then you do not understand what the actual harm addressed in the VRA is. The harm is the dilution of voting power. Not necessarily the discrimination. The 'remedy' follows the 'harm'.
[/quote]

And once again, YOU do not understand what I said here.

The remedy to ANY harmful action is to stop the harmful action.... you instead here proffered a 'correction', and that is most often what happens, and what I have argued against. The solution to someone using race to impact someone's voting power is to NOT allow race to be used to impact someone's voting power. As I've suggested numerous times, if there are enough seats for this to be practical, a measure of whether or not something is 'working' is that the political makeup of the result somewhat approximates the political makeup of the electorate.

How does 'greatly increasing the odds that a black person is elected' NOT almost by definition DECREASE the odds that a Hispanic or Asian or yes, even a White person is not? Using race in ANY way is a problem unless we use EVERY race... and if we use race, why not gender or religion or sexual orientation or any of the OTHER ways that people are discriminated against? Hell, if Republicans used 'gun ownership' or 'support of abortion' as a means by which to gerrymander an electorate to produce a specific result that increased their power over those who disagreed with their position, I think that would be wrong.

In general, I think elections should reflect the will of the people. There are of course state and local boundaries which limit the power of the broader population and increase the local power.

I really don't give a rats ass about the VRA in the terms which are important to you. Like MANY laws, well intended though they may be, they can and often are perverted.

Again, as I've said numerous times..,. Things that were designed as shields (like the VRA) are often turned into weapons... often by lawyers just like you... more interested in parsing words than in applying the underlying fundamental purposes of the original legislation to the current application of it.

Quote:If you cannot distinguish the difference between 'creating an environment to minimize the harm' and choose to blindly call that what you do above, I cannot help you.

Says the guy who LITERALLY just said 'so what' to laws that effectively mandate the election of someone based on race.

Hint... That has now gone way beyond 'minimizing harm' to the point of 'maximizing power'. You STILL keep dancing around the issue of any OTHER race or religion or sexual orientation or gender etc etc etc. Why have we never felt the need to redraw lines to 'minimize the harm' of the patriarchy or of 'Christians'?

Quote:And you keep mixing and matching seemingly at random the issue of a protected group with a non-protected group.

Which of the groups that I've mentioned aren't, or in your mind, shouldn't be protected against discrimination in voting? Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Women, gays or the disabled?

You're demonstrating precisely the problem I'm pointing out... and then claiming I'm 'distracting' by pointing it out. Either you treat everyone equally, or you 'favor' some over others. YOU seem to be comfortable with favoring some over others... which to me is the very definition of discrimination. I honestly don't care HOW you choose to divide people to concentrate power... if it involves race, it is racism.... and you've also ignored the 'so how do we measure who qualifies for that group'.

Quote:3. the minority votes substantially differently from the majority;

How do you measure this? Since blacks vote almost identically to Democrats, this should invalidate any attempt within say California to create a 'black majority' district. Instead, efforts should be made to create 'safe' Republican seats... since Republicans vote substantially different from the majority (Democrats)... BUT... Whites in California also skew Democrat, so using race doesn't address this problem.

All of that said, perhaps you missed where I spoke about a black doctor in Bellaire likely having more politically in common with a white doctor in Bellaire than a black single mom in EDO... who would likely have more in common with a white or Hispanic single mom in EDO as well.

Quote:and finally -- the minority has a significant deficit in relative representation to the ratio of minorities in the population.

Women make up 52ish percent of the population but only 26 and 29% of both houses... and 0% of the White House. So why aren't we drawing districts to address that?

Quote:Your solution is seemingly draw lines by computer. Which addresses exactly 0 of items 2, 3, and 4.

Once again, you fail to imagine what could or should be and insist that we remain constrained by what it. In general, and I've said this.... the VRA as implemented has passed its usefulness and has become a barrier rather than an advantage for the reasons I've mentioned and more. It fails to address

Quote:Ill step through an example to make it crystal clear.

State A has 10 seats, 70% white, 30% hispanic. Whites vote R 65-35, hispanics vote D 70-30.

State A has exactly 1 hispanic seated. In that case, the sheer stats say that hispanic voting is highly diluted. The damage isnt 'discrimination' -- its the dilution of the vote of the hispanics.

Only if you presume that Hispanics are voting for people because they're Hispanic... and not because they're Democrats or support Democrat policies.... and whites the same.

Also though... why is it only race that is a factor here? By definition, and as I've said... we are LITERALLY giving power to divisions by race.... which is racism.... and it perpetuates racism because that brings power. That's a problem.

Mostly though, you've ignored where I specifically said that a measure of an effective computer model would be one where if a party is 40% of the population that they have roughly 40% of the representation. I even gave an example of a current state where (from memory) the state splits 65/35, but the representation is 8-1 in the house for them and 2-0 in the Senate.... and yet somehow this is just fine??

Quote:*when* hispanics live in densities that allow logical districts, this outlines a successful VRA situation for hispanic voters.

Gerrymandering is just another way to engage in political 'bussing'. The problem is, it often busses successful minorities right back into the poor districts that they busted their asses to get out of.

Quote:Blindly running computer lines in no way addresses any remedy that remediates any damage to Hispanic voter dilution.

Since you missed it.. I'll say it again. I don't believe in remediation. I believe in elimination.

IF you tie races to a party, which you did in your example... which seems to be a requirement of politicians drawing lines..... you turn political disagreements into racial disagreements. This fosters and encourages racism. I think black people (like whites, Asians, hispanics etc) are much more than simply 'black'.

Despite the length of this response, there isn't time to go into a full discussion on it, but my earlier comments about how gentrification has created untold amounts of wealth for every demographic EXCEPT inner-city poor people (mostly as a percentage of population, black) is the simplest example of how this concentration of power DOOMS this population to perpetual strife. Recall that I once spoke about the city allowing the redevelopment of say the projects and using that revenue to help them have ownership in another part of the city (or the redeveloped area they live in now)... and this is consistent.

I really don't give a **** about which party that puts in power or the race of those it helps. I just know that the idea helps people who need help.

Quote:Spoken like a true person who doesnt understnad the goal and aim of the VRA Sec 2.

Don't give a **** about its goal and aim. I care about its result. The road to ruin is paved with great goals and aims. especially when politicians can find ways to extract power from it.

Quote:And immaterial to the issue of the VRA by definition.

Which is my point.
The VRA (as interpreted) only applies to minorities in some states.

Quote:

Quote:What difference does it make if a racial minority votes against the majority?

Because the damage addressed by VRA Sec 2 ISNT discrimination of a race. It is the DILUTION of their vote.

Dilution of someones vote based on their race is both discrimination AND racism.

Perhaps the MOST racist thing is the presumption that 'because they are black', they will vote for a black person.... as opposed to just voting for (most often) a Democrat based on their policies.

Quote:The bolded is actually a key and necessary component to the VRA Sec 2. The damage to the VOTING power of minority only occurs when the voting between the majority and minority is different.

I think the bolded is the key to your mislabeling and misapplication of VR Sec. 2.

I have never invoked it... so I have never mislabeled nor misapplied it. It is IMO, mostly irrelevant, especially as it is being used today.

BUT...

You just described precisely WHY Democrats continue to stoke the fires of racial division in this country.... because they can get power from it.

An example is the comments we heard when Kamala was rejected by voters... that 'the country wasn't ready for a black woman'.... and that was mostly pointed at the right... which of course ignores that the right wasn't going to vote for ANY Democrat... regardless of gender or race. It was Democrats who didn't come out 'in force' to support her like they did for Biden.... most notably, Trump got DOUBLE the percentage of blacks against Harris than against Biden.

Now, someone might argue (and I didn't look into it) that it was black MEN who voted for Trump/against Kamala, which some might argue means that they are more concerned with gender than with race, but I believe it was about policies and priorities.... and that like everyone else, they'd rather support 'good ideas' from a different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc etc etc than 'bad' ones from someone who looked like them.

I mean, that just seems intellectually obvious... and the alternative seems insulting.

Quote:One cannot decouple redistricting and race from VRA. Especially when VRA Sec 2 is used inaccurately as a whipping boy.

How can I be using something as a whipping boy that I didn't introduce? Sure, I responded to your 'claims' about it... but I didn't bring it up.

and SURE you can decouple it. For the purposes of an academic discussion, you look at what free and fair elections and districts could or should look like and you 'begin with the end in mind'... which ignores any obstacles or impediments that might currently exist.

What I see you doing is defending a decision from 50+ years ago and suggesting that it still has some 'kinda okay' usefulness to it... and I'm suggesting that if you were to design the system from scratch today, knowing what we know now... that you wouldn't GO that way.... so let's ignore it in an attempt to design the best outcome.

The path to that outcome is less important to me than the best outcome... and you seem intent on discussing the path.

Quote:Shaping districts by politics and shaping by race are wholly different --- one is perfectly legal, while being wholly incorrect (imo), while the other issue is one that *requires* reference to both the Civil War amendments (which you wholly missed in your original post where you stated there was nothing in the original Constitution on it, thus you felt should be ignored), *and* to the VRA provisions.

Lol... then let me be more clear. I referenced the Constitution because it best reflects the intent of our founders and the core principles of our nation. I mentioned also how despite ALSO denying women the right to vote, NO attempt has ever been made to ensure that THEY are fairly represented in the government. Other 'protected groups' have similarly found no concerted effort to ensure proportional representation.

I feel it should be ignored SOLELY because it does not guarantee equal protection. At best it guarantees only equal protection for one class of protected people, and only in 'some' states.

Even if one feels that the VRA protecting blacks was necessary at the time because of Slavery and the civil war, I believe the 'limitations' that it has placed on this community, particularly with regard to 'upward mobility' have become vastly more harmful to that community than the 'continued' advantages it represents. I submit that in the 1960's, that wasn't the case. That doesn't address the fact that it STILL doesn't provide equal protection, but that discussion is moot, because we did it.

Maybe said better... I believe an easy way to argue to overturn it would be to point out that it currently does not provide equal protection... which makes no difference to whether or not it ever did or if such inequality was ever justified. That to me is a moot argument.

Quote:I suggest you look at the listing in the 14th 15th and 16th before willy nilly adding other protected classes as part of your answer. Or just add extraneous issue to the mix as you do above.

Again, either we are all equal or we are not. The fact that our previous attempts to fulfill the promise of our founding may have fallen short of that ideal makes no difference to the argument. You're arguing what currently is... and I'm arguing what could or should be.

Quote:Otherwise, hate to tell you, but that is the foundational law at the present. Bummer for you.

Your inability or unwillingness to engage in an academic discussion on a chat board for Rice people is disappointing. That WAS the clearly articulated purpose of this post.

Before I advocate for getting rid of ANYTHING, I wanted to discuss the 'in a perfect world, what would this look like' sort of thing... and THEN when we've decided what it should look like, you can start arguing about what needs to 'go'.

The reason for this is obvious.... and while I hope its not your intention, I can't assume it given your history... If I were to come on here and argue to get rid of the 14th amendment, you'd label me a racist. I don't think we need to get rid of the 14th... we just need to apply it more broadly. I mean, we have the 19th, but we don't see (as you did in your example) a lack of having 50% representation as being evidence of inequality.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:That much should be surmised by my list. And for the record, in EP it is Mexican Americans, not blacks. I constructed that list to specifically note I dont give a **** whom the majority votes for. But I am glad that you see something there.

Once again, forest:trees. First, no **** on EP and Mexican Americans... I used the example you gave for the same reason you did.... and you missed it.

You actually made up an extraneous one. A shallow one that missed the point my list made.

I dont give a fk how many blacks in EP. It is an empty comment that has zero relation (except perhaps for obfuscation) to the specific items I placed in that list.

Wow... you STILL don't get it. It's like talking to a brick wall.

You said 'blacks' because the VRA was specifically written to target blacks... and then you used an example where GEOGRAPHY is the defining characteristic, just as I suggested as a solution... and also it appears that this majority Hispanic community (but still a decent percentage of whites) elected' a black Mayor.

Your own example flies in the face of the idea that racial minorities vote for people BECAUSE of their race.

Quote:

Quote:The thing you REALLY missed is that despite the claim you're trying to quietly present (it may be unintentional, but its there) most whites in EP have Hispanic roots or are not racist against Hispanics and thus most Politicians in El Paso have some percentage of Hispanic in their lineage,... much more than say European. The only non-Hispanic surname I see on a quick glance of the El Paso City COuncil is Mayor Renard Johnson, who is Black.

Glad you are now the board local genealogy and population race studies expert here. Imagine that.

ANd when you are presented with simple information available to anyone that confronts your world-view, you resort to insults. Imagine that.

Quote:This boils down to 'one rep states dont have this and they have simple geographical limits' One rep states dont have the issue because it is mathematically impossible, not because of the presence of geographical limits.

Lol... It is obviously the geographical limits of the state boundaries that create this issue.

MAYBE you'll understand this.

A big part of my push is that while I agree that race plays a factor in many people's decisions... that other factors are vastly more important. Geography being one of them... which can be tied to local politics. When you draw a district that often crosses city, county, hospital district or any of a number of geographic lines, you are often tying people together for some issues that are not remotely tied together for others.

Saying it more clearly.... The people of SOME of these districts are tied together in DC for say, funding for public transportation or water treatment or a bridge or a hospital that some of them will never need or have access to.

It can create the perception of empowerment while actually denying it.

Quote:I suggest you actually read up on the mechanism of the VRA 2 first -- that is before firing off your litany of rhetorical 'whadabouts'.

Lol... so once again, you refuse to discuss ways to make things bet

None of your comments above make an iota of sense with the bald numbers you think are important above with the actual mechanisms of VRA 2.

Quote:

Quote:Again, you're arguing what the law (or interpretations of it) says... and I'm arguing what it does.

Actually -- you are not. Not by a long shot.

Then why are we still discussing race and gerrymandering if the VRA solved the problem?

All attempts to 'game the system' will be caught and corrected and thus racism in US politics is 'dead'.

Quote:Lastly, Im flummoxed by some of your comments. You keep saying that the VRA isnt what you intended to discuss. In fact, your discussion is "Considering race in redistricting". And in the initial post flatly state that the issue isnt in the original Constitution, and thus shouldnt be an issue.

But you dont seem to realize that the *sole* and *only* mechanism that is currently driving 'Race in redistricting' is in fact the VRA. SO somehow the major (read 'sole') mechanism that drives 'race in redistricting' isnt one that seems to you to be a major issue in this discussion, nor really should, and seems to you to be an ancillary byproduct. Let alone that your original post takes a pretty sharp hit to the jaw when it doesnt bother to consider the Civil War Amendments. So I am fairly perplexed at your wish to *not* discuss the actual mechanisms of the sole driver of the issue. And perplexed that while being a major critic of it, you dont seem to be very well schooled in the actual mechanisms of it.

Wow...

There is a concept in business development that says 'begin with the end result in mind'. That concept applied to this issue absolutely would ignore the civil was AND the VRA and most everything else to focus solely on the beginnings and the ends, which is what I've done. I've given you the courtesy of discussing 'where we are' or 'how we got to where we are', but that really makes no difference to 'what we could look like'.

While Harris ran an awful campaign, her team obviously understood the power of words... often repeating mantras... even if they didn't ever talk about what that looked like in practice. One of them was 'I believe in what can be, unencumbered by what has been'. That is the sort of discussion this was supposed to be. It really makes no sense to discuss 'how we get there from here' if we don't agree on where we're going... which was the OP, and you offer little to that discussion.

(11-24-2025 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The remedy to ANY harmful action is to stop the harmful action.... you instead here proffered a 'correction', and that is most often what happens, and what I have argued against. The solution to someone using race to impact someone's voting power is to NOT allow race to be used to impact someone's voting power.

The harm is actually 'dilution of minority voting power'. Your continued parroting of the italicized is *not* a solution that issue.

Quote:How does 'greatly increasing the odds that a black person is elected' NOT almost by definition DECREASE the odds that a Hispanic or Asian or yes, even a White person is not?

I have been a little loose in specificity, and tighter at times. The implementation of the italicized directly above should be "ensuring that the minorities whose voting rights are diminished actually enjoy a fuller implementation of *their* choice.'

As an example I previously used this: "*When* a group is discriminated in the manner of voting, the only practicable solution is to create an environment, if possible based on density, to have the ability to have that group being suppressed exercise their choice."

Maybe use my phrasing and concepts instead of strawmanning them pretty liberally as you did with the above.

Quote:Using race in ANY way is a problem unless we use EVERY race...

One *must* use race when dealing with the issue of dilution of minority voting power -- when that minority is a racial minority. Great rhetoric above, but failed rhetoric in light of the base problem.

Quote:In general, I think elections should reflect the will of the people.

They should. Absolutely. And should within the confines and purview of Constitutional frameworks.

There are of course state and local boundaries which limit the power of the broader population and increase the local power.

Quote:Again, as I've said numerous times..,. Things that were designed as shields (like the VRA) are often turned into weapons... often by lawyers just like you... more interested in parsing words than in applying the underlying fundamental purposes of the original legislation to the current application of it.

I agree that the political messaging of racial issues in districting are toxic. I am also aware that that messaging doesnt reflect the purpose and mechanisms of the VRA. Many on the left think that the VRA simply means 40% black voters should equate to roughly 40% black reps. And that is used as an never-ending push as to historical victimhood. Many on the right fall for the claptrap that the VRA is a catcall (again) for mandated racial makeups, *and* the vestige of 'make up calls', and have their own present victimhood spiel.

As to the issue of the right, the first portion is false, the second issue is that the VRA is actually race (or defined minority) agnostic, has to be proven up to be implemented, and actually deals with grouping said minorities as to not substantially obviate *their* voting power for *their* choice as to whom should represent them. The final point is mandated by the interplay of the Constitution. That is -- all of it. Not selected subsections as has been proffered here.

Quote:

Quote:You STILL keep dancing around the issue of any OTHER race or religion or sexual orientation or gender etc etc etc. Why have we never felt the need to redraw lines to 'minimize the harm' of the patriarchy or of 'Christians'?

First, your issue of patriarchy ( I assume you mean male voters) and 'Christians' isnt mandated by the interplay of the 14th and 15th amendments. End of story. Again great rhetorical flourish, but sparsely shallow on the factual basis of being an actual legal rationale.

The 15th specifically ties voting rights to 'race and color', so simply please stop with your continued throwing of random groups at this wall and hope they stick.

As for other races -- - Spirit Lake Nation & Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. North Dakota (2022–2025)
Native voters challenged North Dakota’s legislative maps, arguing they diluted Native voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would have stripped private plaintiffs of the ability to enforce the VRA, preserving fair maps for Native voters.
- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (2025)
Native tribes and individual voters sued North Dakota’s Secretary of State, claiming the state’s redistricting plan diluted Native voting power. This case highlights the reliance of Native communities on Section 2’s private right of action to protect their voting rights.
- Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine (2006, South Dakota)
A federal court found South Dakota’s legislative redistricting plan unlawfully packed Native Americans into a single district, violating Section 2 of the VRA. The ruling required fairer districting to ensure Native representation.
- U.S. v. South Dakota (early 2000s)
Litigation forced South Dakota to provide equal access to voter registration and early voting sites for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, addressing discriminatory practices that limited Native participation.

For Asian Americans there have been several interactions there as well.

But please continue your shrill comments on how no other races benefit from VRA Sec. 2. Im impressed at the level of 'whadabouts' tossed out that actually have answers, and answers that cut against the rhetorical edge that you seem impressed that you are presenting as some grand 'how come it doesnt work in other aspects.' That is a problem with unresearched rhetorical question one might surmise.

Quote:

Quote:And you keep mixing and matching seemingly at random the issue of a protected group with a non-protected group.

Which of the groups that I've mentioned aren't, or in your mind, shouldn't be protected against discrimination in voting? Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Women, gays or the disabled?

Jews, Women, gays and the disabled. Tracking the language of the 15th amendment. The problem is also that you dont seem to realize what the 15th brings to the picture, and why. And instead choose to conflate the issue with a series of uninformed 'what about these'. And while the series of minority groups you fling around like a striking sword showing your prowess at contra-examples -- the issue is really that you have zero or close to zero understanding of even the base foundation of the Act, or perhaps not that of the base Amendments and language it is predicated on. So again, bravo and huzzah on your throwing around a few minority groups that you seemingly expound above on how they prove your point -- but most simply lay beyond the actual language in the Act, and the language bounds in the Amendments that are the foundation of the Act.

Again, the language of the 15th is stark, and basic. And provides a very clear answer when one actually looks at it and utilizes it. Maybe some effort at that angle and less on the rhetorical questions. If not rhetorical, then one might think you are simply too lazy to actually look up the language and guidance, and prefer to move forward with unvarnished 'exemplars' that you think are highly incisive, but in the light of actual language and factual history simply are not.

Quote:You're demonstrating precisely the problem I'm pointing out... and then claiming I'm 'distracting' by pointing it out. [/quoting]

You are distracting by pointing them out. And demonstrating you have no clue as to the basis on which the VRA is based. Yes, your continued comments like the above show exactly that.

Quote:Either you treat everyone equally, or you 'favor' some over others. YOU seem to be comfortable with favoring some over others... which to me is the very definition of discrimination. I honestly don't care HOW you choose to divide people to concentrate power... if it involves race, it is racism.... and you've also ignored the 'so how do we measure who qualifies for that group'.

Ham, at the levels denoted, one need not a highly exacting summation of totals to the nearest individual or not. One can do all of the above in the VRA using broad numbers. So great, we do not necessarily need the exacting test that you call for. Dude, sit down and put your thinking cap on. This is *just* like the counting done in a census for original allocation of Reps. They arent built on numbers to the nearest individual, nor structurally and fatally flawed in the rough numbers we actually generate as a society.

If the issue were individuals winning a lottery based on race, your exacting call for a test of that manner might be warranted. But honesty, this isnt that. So yes, we as a society do not have a 'black test', or an 'American Indian test'. If you want to stretch that to highly specious counts in the general sense -- have it at. Lolz.

Quote:[quote]
3. the minority votes substantially differently from the majority;

How do you measure this?

As a first step, seems to me that just about every media and college has an idea from the data I see in the news and in studies. But please keep on your tear.

Quote:Since blacks vote almost identically to Democrats, this should invalidate any attempt within say California to create a 'black majority' district.

You win a slice of pie there!!! And.... there are none. Also, the % of black voters in Cali is only about 6% -- too small to pass the test.

Quote: Instead, efforts should be made to create 'safe' Republican seats...

Nope, a step backward when you default to a political demarcation there. The issue is *only* a minority as defined under the 15th as a cogent target group.

Also, to be fair, the 'votes differently' should be the actual wording in the legal test -- 'racially polarized voting patterns'. Those polarizations can be political party, and they can also be racial characteristics of candidates.

Quote:

Quote:and finally -- the minority has a significant deficit in relative representation to the ratio of minorities in the population.

Women make up 52ish percent of the population but only 26 and 29% of both houses... and 0% of the White House. So why aren't we drawing districts to address that?

Because the language of the 15th doesnt address that distinction. And also because there are no specific 'density aggregations' of women that would allow that.

Quote:

Quote:Your solution is seemingly draw lines by computer. Which addresses exactly 0 of items 2, 3, and 4.

Once again, you fail to imagine what could or should be and insist that we remain constrained by what it.

Nope. I think the tests for the VRA 2 are pretty well drawn for the goals of the language that requires it. And the mechanisms dont match what you claim are the outcomes.

Quote:Also though... why is it only race that is a factor here? By definition, and as I've said... we are LITERALLY giving power to divisions by race.... which is racism.... and it perpetuates racism because that brings power. That's a problem.

Quote:Mostly though, you've ignored where I specifically said that a measure of an effective computer model would be one where if a party is 40% of the population that they have roughly 40% of the representation. I even gave an example of a current state where (from memory) the state splits 65/35, but the representation is 8-1 in the house for them and 2-0 in the Senate.... and yet somehow this is just fine??

A state can legally split the political divide however it wants. If that is the sole determinant, for the most part. But..... when a minority race has its voting power impaired by the structure, that then rises to a 15th amendment violation.

Quote:

Quote:*when* hispanics live in densities that allow logical districts, this outlines a successful VRA situation for hispanic voters.

Gerrymandering is just another way to engage in political 'bussing'. The problem is, it often busses successful minorities right back into the poor districts that they busted their asses to get out of.

Nope. Nice made up allegation.

Quote:

Quote:Blindly running computer lines in no way addresses any remedy that remediates any damage to Hispanic voter dilution.

Since you missed it.. I'll say it again. I don't believe in remediation. I believe in elimination.

The way to eliminate minority race dilution is, when the minority shows voting power dilution, group those races together to insure their voting power.

None of your 'race neutral' ideas address that particular issue.

Your 'race neutral' ideas address minority set asides, minority 'bumps' in colleges, etc etc etc. And imo in a Justice Roberts fashion -- a positive one that says the best way to address discrimination is to not discriminate.

But none of the above issues that fall under that rubric are Constitutionally protected. Voting power of minorities is. And once again, when a voting pattern creates an impediment to the exercise of minority voting power, its not the discrimination of races that is the solution -- it is the addressing of the voting power that is the solution.

Quote:

Quote:Spoken like a true person who doesnt understnad the goal and aim of the VRA Sec 2.

Don't give a **** about its goal and aim. I care about its result.

Unfortunately you arent able to really articulate its result accurately. let alone its goal and aim.

Your solution of 'dont use race -- period' doesnt impact the Constitutional requirement mandated by the 14th and 15th.

In fact, your solution there is only slightly better than 'at large districts' when it comes to insuring minority voting power, and honestly -- far worse than the actions the VRA 2 mandates.

If you doubt that -- simply look at the '21 Texas redistricting process and the control maps with no racial bounds in them. The numbers of wholly unbalanced maps that were produced in that process was astounding. And that is with no 'intent to discriminate' thumb on the scales.

The maps that were produced passed the acid test of further redrawing, mind you. Until this spring, that is.

Quote:Which is my point.
The VRA (as interpreted) only applies to minorities in some states.

Yes, when the issue is detrimental impacts to minority voting power, the solution is in the form of above. Your proposed solution doesnt address that issue at all, mind you.

And again, mandated by the tying of voting power to race in the 15th.

Quote:You just described precisely WHY Democrats continue to stoke the fires of racial division in this country.... because they can get power from it.

And why the Repubs continue to stoke the fires of 'make up call' and equal division from their talk of that -- because they can get power from it.

Quote:An example is the comments we heard when Kamala was rejected by voters... that 'the country wasn't ready for a black woman'.... and that was mostly pointed at the right... which of course ignores that the right wasn't going to vote for ANY Democrat... regardless of gender or race. It was Democrats who didn't come out 'in force' to support her like they did for Biden.... most notably, Trump got DOUBLE the percentage of blacks against Harris than against Biden.

Now, someone might argue (and I didn't look into it) that it was black MEN who voted for Trump/against Kamala, which some might argue means that they are more concerned with gender than with race, but I believe it was about policies and priorities.... and that like everyone else, they'd rather support 'good ideas' from a different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc etc etc than 'bad' ones from someone who looked like them.

They actually do -- I agree. And there is uch in the language of the Repubs that I find equally opprobrious.

Much in the form of 'make up call', and all the comments about racial issues and welfare, for example.

Pot. Kettle. Imo.

Quote:

Quote:Shaping districts by politics and shaping by race are wholly different --- one is perfectly legal, while being wholly incorrect (imo), while the other issue is one that *requires* reference to both the Civil War amendments (which you wholly missed in your original post where you stated there was nothing in the original Constitution on it, thus you felt should be ignored), *and* to the VRA provisions.

Lol... then let me be more clear. I referenced the Constitution because it best reflects the intent of our founders and the core principles of our nation.

Agree to the first, disagree as to the second. Lot of really heavy, important stuff has been added since the base Articles. Even after the Bill of Rights. I think the Civil war amendments are a highly reflective idea of the core principles of our nation. As well as guaranteeing the franchise to women explicitly.

Quote:I mentioned also how despite ALSO denying women the right to vote, NO attempt has ever been made to ensure that THEY are fairly represented in the government. Other 'protected groups' have similarly found no concerted effort to ensure proportional representation.

To belabor a point made more than once -- they dont fall under the 15th and the explicit statement of rights of citizens to vote may not be denied or abridged due to race, color, or servitude.

And again, its not 'ensure proportional representation'. It is protection that the right of the minority race, when they vote in a polarized manner to the majority, are guaranteed the ability to have as full representation as practicably possible. A very large distinction to what you say above.

Quote:I feel it should be ignored SOLELY because it does not guarantee equal protection. At best it guarantees only equal protection for one class of protected people, and only in 'some' states.

I take it you havent read the 15th? Yes, it only refers to one distinguishment.

Quote:Even if one feels that the VRA protecting blacks was necessary at the time because of Slavery and the civil war, I believe the 'limitations' that it has placed on this community, particularly with regard to 'upward mobility' have become vastly more harmful to that community than the 'continued' advantages it represents. I submit that in the 1960's, that wasn't the case. That doesn't address the fact that it STILL doesn't provide equal protection, but that discussion is moot, because we did it.

So the VRA limits upward mobility of blacks? Seriously?

I might agree with you on a whole host of other affirmative action issues, but I am gobsmacked that someone is actually claiming that the VRA limits upward mobility of blacks as you just did above.

Quote:Maybe said better... I believe an easy way to argue to overturn it would be to point out that it currently does not provide equal protection... which makes no difference to whether or not it ever did or if such inequality was ever justified. That to me is a moot argument.

Care to back that broad rhetoric with anything near facts? I can relay to you a whole host of issues that firmly and broadly show striking racial minority voting power impediments. The Louisiana case is not a singleton in isolation at the current time.

Quote:

Quote:I suggest you look at the listing in the 14th 15th and 16th before willy nilly adding other protected classes as part of your answer. Or just add extraneous issue to the mix as you do above.

Again, either we are all equal or we are not. The fact that our previous attempts to fulfill the promise of our founding may have fallen short of that ideal makes no difference to the argument. You're arguing what currently is... and I'm arguing what could or should be.

Not at all. Im stating that I have zero problem with a law that seeks to redress voting dilution of a racial minority --- *that* is the true racism. And an issue that both appears in the Constitution and one I actually support.

You do have a problem with that law. And in general the idea that voting power should have a protection based on racial components. And when the steady state is achieved -- I have zero problem having that law as redress if it should occur.

In the perfect world we would be race blind. We are not at this point. And in the perfect word the issue of minority groups having radically polarizing political voting habits from the majority would not exist. Unfortunately that is not the United States of today, here and now.

And until that state of being is achieved, I do not have a problem with the creation and maintencance of minority majority districts to address any such imbalance that can be proved up by that minority.

Quote:

Quote:Once again, forest:trees. First, no **** on EP and Mexican Americans... I used the example you gave for the same reason you did.... and you missed it.

You actually made up an extraneous one. A shallow one that missed the point my list made.

I dont give a fk how many blacks in EP. It is an empty comment that has zero relation (except perhaps for obfuscation) to the specific items I placed in that list.

Wow... you STILL don't get it. It's like talking to a brick wall.

You said 'blacks' because the VRA was specifically written to target blacks... and then you used an example where GEOGRAPHY is the defining characteristic, just as I suggested as a solution...

Ill type this slower for you (much like your ****** brick wall comment above).

Here is my comment: "Second, the law is written in a manner that it is irrelevant whether 'blacks vote Democratic', or 'El Paso white people vite 75% Republican' -- or any combination you wish to think of."

The list is that the majority minority in the first is blacks, voting one way. If and when the whites in El Paso (a minority in a political entity, represented by multiple alderman district) vote distrinctly different than Hispanics (the majority), the VRA applies to both groups.

Im sorry that you didnt catch that El Paso is in fact an example of a political entity having a representational democracy in the form of its city council. Somehow you leap to some razor thin 'its GEOGRAPHY' in nature.

Quote:and also it appears that this majority Hispanic community (but still a decent percentage of whites) elected' a black Mayor.

Last I saw the mayor is an at large position and at large election. Last I saw is that such aggregate positions dont invoke VRA issues. I surmise that you dont think that important, with the gusto you give that issue. Cool cool.

Quote:Your own example flies in the face of the idea that racial minorities vote for people BECAUSE of their race.

Thats not what I am saying Ham. Maybe stop with the thin strawman please.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:The thing you REALLY missed is that despite the claim you're trying to quietly present (it may be unintentional, but its there) most whites in EP have Hispanic roots or are not racist against Hispanics and thus most Politicians in El Paso have some percentage of Hispanic in their lineage,... much more than say European. The only non-Hispanic surname I see on a quick glance of the El Paso City COuncil is Mayor Renard Johnson, who is Black.

Glad you are now the board local genealogy and population race studies expert here. Imagine that.

ANd when you are presented with simple information available to anyone that confronts your world-view, you resort to insults. Imagine that.

Nope. I just doubt the stuff you continuously pelt the wall with Ham best guesses.

Edited to add: To shuttle back to your original thesis, with all due respect the issue of diminishing voting power due to racial concerns is at its core an explicit protection stated in the 15th. At its foundation, race and voting power of a group having a common race are tied together at a bedrock level. To which I return to my original comments : You cannot simply decouple race from the issue.

Which leads to your comment about ‘solving it’. I’m pretty much in favor of the 15th. It cries to world that all are created equal, and if a racial group voting power is diminished — it should be unlawful.

If you want a ‘solution’ (which I don’t find necessary), the only solution is to remove the 15th. If you back the proposition counter to no persons right to fully vote shall not be denied or abridged — free country and all that jazz. I’ll take the proposition stated in the 15th as opposed to that counter it.

The structure of the VRA implements a good mechanism to enable the 15th. When there is a significant minority, and tha minority can prove up that they are radically polarized in their political choices from the majority, and that a racial group has sufficient density to support a representative (US, state lege, city, county (the last two denoting an entity comprising single persons acting in the role of representative democracy, and not your short shrift call of “SIMPLY GEOGRAPHY”)), then care must be taken to ensure that that racial minority is offered the best opportunity to exercise their choice.

And finally, you wish to know 'where we are' -- and again a simple exercise of doing some basic research on VRA 2 issues that have been decided to afford protection, and those that havent, provide both a 'determiniative' basis for that query, and within them the actual factual foundation. I dont believe, based on the historical record, that the harm of diluting minority voting power has been washed out to the level that we should consider wholesale unwinding of the VRA in deed, or of the 15th in practice.

Just the history of LA US representative issues over the last 70 years should illuminate that. Including present LA. Wash rinse and repeat for many of the states of the old Confederacy. And some others outside of the old Confederate states.

And, notwithstanding the factual issue that the VRA is not a presumptive remedy -- but remains a 'must prove damage' to enjoy the actions that it entails. That is, a good tool to have in the box to combat that harm when it happens -- instead of simply blindly removing it.