I struggle with this... and wonder what others think.

From a logical perspective, it seems quite simple. When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

However, there are all sorts of excellent reasons that I can think of to ensure minority representation in government... and some serious evils that can result from their exclusion.... even though nothing in the Constitution that I see mentions this...

That said, I think any attempt to create 'safe' districts should apply to ALL minorities... which would certainly include Hispanics and Asians... but what about Muslims or Jews?? How far into the 'minority' pool are we supposed to go? And do we simply take someone's word for their ethnicity?? What race is Rachel Dolezal? Is Elon Musk African American? Is Tiger Woods Black or Asian? How can you create a 'black' safe district unless you're literally creating 'red lines' and encouraging a version of segregation?

I THINK that the solution has to be something like... allowing the state to decide whether the boundary lines for a district include things like the Bayou, I-10, the 610 loop or South Main Street... but not the sort of crazy lines that we far too often see. No going back and forth across that sort of boundary in order to specifically include or exclude specific addresses.

Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

Thoughts?

(10-16-2025 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I struggle with this... and wonder what others think.

From a logical perspective, it seems quite simple. When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

In an ideal world race shouldn't play a part. Allegedly that's where we're headed, and the controversy is over whether the time is now or not yet.

Quote:However, there are all sorts of excellent reasons that I can think of to ensure minority representation in government... and some serious evils that can result from their exclusion.... even though nothing in the Constitution that I see mentions this...

To be fair, the constitution didn't need to address distinctions among voters because there were none - voters were almost exclusively white males.

Quote:And do we simply take someone's word for their ethnicity??

Yes. Congressional apportionment and gerrymandering are based on census results.

The whole point is to maximize votes for one party or another. The lines are drawn to create voting blocks. A minority groups' percentage of the population needs to be large enough to create a majority if the boundary is drawn just so, and that group has to reliably vote red or blue.

Quote:Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

For many politicians in favor of race-based gerrymandering, that's the point. Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning.

(10-16-2025 03:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

For many politicians in favor of race-based gerrymandering, that's the point. Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning.

The real decision is to have every state go to a bipartisan committee. It wont eliminate those issues, but it will go a long way to reduce the extreme partisanship that goes into the decisions made raw by the legislatures.

Most commissions have guidelines on 'geometric issues' (goes deep into 'how complex the area is defined, some simple ones are 'how many votes are determined by total boundary length', That is, wild assed geometric districts are characterized by this corridors and thin fingers, massively expanding the total boundary length.)

But the question has to be done by the state.

And with the current trend to mid-cycle redistricting, the trend for bipartisan commissions is now probably deader than the armadillo in the middle of the highway.

And frizz, the bolded is not limited to racial issues. At all. In the present here and now, "Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning" (even without regard to race issues)

Quote:When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

Unfortunately while correct for the founders, that doesnt necessarily survive the Civil War amendments. And the VRA puts into place race based criteria such that a minority isnt gerrymandered into nothingness. That is -- the VRA was designed as a shield against schemes that limit or dilute the voting power of communities with a history of being marginalized. And such actions seem to be within the purview of the Civil War amendments.

Additionally, the tests for protection in the VRA arent an automatic 'in' to the protections of the VRA.

yes, you are correct that the *Founders* did not set out a racial metric. And you are correct that the original text, and Bill of Rights do not create any support fo such race based metric. But the Civil War amendments very well spelt out that minorities are not to be discriminated. And the structure of (especially Southern States) voting systems up until the VRA very much structured representations to ensure that minorities (within the definition of an affected class) were not represented.

And when the conditions for problems exist, then, and only then, may the VRA be used to correct those imbalances,

The factors to show that a majority - minority bloc is proper are:
1. Numerosity and Compactness: The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
2. Political Cohesion: The minority group must be politically cohesive, meaning its members tend to vote for the same candidates.
3. Majority Bloc Voting: The majority group must vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate.

These conditions must be met for a plaintiff to successfully challenge a voting law that may dilute the voting strength of minority voters. And are congruent with the aims of the Civil War amendments.

Re-districting has become so hideously perverted that I tend to think the best practical solution is simply to avoid it as much as possible. For example, a rule could be imposed that no re-districting takes effect until 50 years after its adoption. While that would inevitably result in unequal districts -- perhaps even some classic "rotten boroughs" -- those effects seem less harmful than the nanoscale electoral engineering that currently takes place.

Perhaps the biggest political bstacle to instituting a long lag time is not the future inequalities (which we could live with), but figuring out what base case to start from. I'm not sure how to crack that nut.

Gerrymandering by both sides for political advantage has become so widespread that it hardly seems a crime anymore. it's like driving 5 MPH over the limit - nobody should do it, everybody does it, and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Everybody agrees it should be stopped, but nobody has decent idea of how to effectively and fairly do it. The so-called "bipartisan" commissions are appointed by partisan politicians or elected, with the nominees running representing a party.

Maybe let the Libertarians do it.

But that is gerrymandering for politics. Gerymandering for race is a horse of a different color (pun intended), even though it could be considered to also be gerrymandering for political advantage.

Th civil War and Reconstruction were a long time ago, as was the VRA. The world has changed mightily since then. As a child in the 50's and 60's, I remember many municipalities having something called White Citizen's Councils. Haven't heard of one lately. I remember those kids being escorted into Little Rock Central. Have seen anything like that lately. I remember George Wallace and James Merdith. Haven't seen those situations lately either.

I remember "colored Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, and dining areas. Haven't seen one in decades.

When I was a kid, I estimate that 50% of whites were segregationists. Now I estimate that it is closer to .005%.

The battle is over. Yet some people keep fighting it because without that fight, their personal value as a leader or fighter is diminished.

Race should have no bearing on the drawing of districts, just as it should have no bearing in hiring or firing. JMO.

I recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine bout different methods of determining mountain heights other than sheer height above mean seas level. One was called "jut", and used a mathematical formula to determine which mountains had the most extreme changes in elevation from the base. Why cannot a similar formula be applied to districts, making the most extreme shapes - the one with most "jut" - illegal? No more districts that look like highway maps.

I guarantee you, though, if somebody proposed using a similar formula that would minimize gerrymanding, one party would oppose it as being racist. We all know which party that would be.

(10-18-2025 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Gerrymandering by both sides for political advantage has become so widespread that it hardly seems a crime anymore. it's like driving 5 MPH over the limit - nobody should do it, everybody does it, and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Everybody agrees it should be stopped, but nobody has decent idea of how to effectively and fairly do it. The so-called "bipartisan" commissions are appointed by partisan politicians or elected, with the nominees running representing a party.

Maybe let the Libertarians do it.

But that is gerrymandering for politics. Gerymandering for race is a horse of a different color (pun intended), even though it could be considered to also be gerrymandering for political advantage.

Th civil War and Reconstruction were a long time ago, as was the VRA. The world has changed mightily since then. As a child in the 50's and 60's, I remember many municipalities having something called White Citizen's Councils. Haven't heard of one lately. I remember those kids being escorted into Little Rock Central. Have seen anything like that lately. I remember George Wallace and James Merdith. Haven't seen those situations lately either.

I remember "colored Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, and dining areas. Haven't seen one in decades.

When I was a kid, I estimate that 50% of whites were segregationists. Now I estimate that it is closer to .005%.

The battle is over. Yet some people keep fighting it because without that fight, their personal value as a leader or fighter is diminished.

Race should have no bearing on the drawing of districts, just as it should have no bearing in hiring or firing. JMO.

I recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine bout different methods of determining mountain heights other than sheer height above mean seas level. One was called "jut", and used a mathematical formula to determine which mountains had the most extreme changes in elevation from the base. Why cannot a similar formula be applied to districts, making the most extreme shapes - the one with most "jut" - illegal? No more districts that look like highway maps.

I guarantee you, though, if somebody proposed using a similar formula that would minimize gerrymanding, one party would oppose it as being racist. We all know which party that would be.

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”?

Sounds fun.

VRA Sec 2 is in broad terms ‘take race into account only when race was already taken into account’.

I agree broadly that initial race based decisions should not be undertaken. But they are at times. That is when the power of VRA sec 2 impacts — it allows the use of the reverse race based decisions in counter only in effect previous race based outcomes, and then only in very delineated situations, that entry into Sec 2 that the person attempting to use Sec 2 bears the burden to show and prove.

I don’t think your description of the VRA is very emblematic of the surviving provisions.

And the real heavy hand of the VRA has already been judicially neutered .. the pre-clearance provisions.

To your last sentence — I guarantee you that if someone proposed removing Sec 2 as a remedy available to any affected minority and cast it purely as a legal political gerrymander, one party would be the proponent of it. We all know what party that is. Criminy, that is *exactly* what has happened in Louisiana literally at the present. So you just might want to think about that with all the sermonics you sally forth with.

(10-18-2025 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Gerrymandering by both sides for political advantage has become so widespread that it hardly seems a crime anymore. it's like driving 5 MPH over the limit - nobody should do it, everybody does it, and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Everybody agrees it should be stopped, but nobody has decent idea of how to effectively and fairly do it. The so-called "bipartisan" commissions are appointed by partisan politicians or elected, with the nominees running representing a party.

Maybe let the Libertarians do it.

But that is gerrymandering for politics. Gerymandering for race is a horse of a different color (pun intended), even though it could be considered to also be gerrymandering for political advantage.

Th civil War and Reconstruction were a long time ago, as was the VRA. The world has changed mightily since then. As a child in the 50's and 60's, I remember many municipalities having something called White Citizen's Councils. Haven't heard of one lately. I remember those kids being escorted into Little Rock Central. Have seen anything like that lately. I remember George Wallace and James Merdith. Haven't seen those situations lately either.

I remember "colored Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, and dining areas. Haven't seen one in decades.

When I was a kid, I estimate that 50% of whites were segregationists. Now I estimate that it is closer to .005%.

The battle is over. Yet some people keep fighting it because without that fight, their personal value as a leader or fighter is diminished.

Race should have no bearing on the drawing of districts, just as it should have no bearing in hiring or firing. JMO.

I recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine bout different methods of determining mountain heights other than sheer height above mean seas level. One was called "jut", and used a mathematical formula to determine which mountains had the most extreme changes in elevation from the base. Why cannot a similar formula be applied to districts, making the most extreme shapes - the one with most "jut" - illegal? No more districts that look like highway maps.

I guarantee you, though, if somebody proposed using a similar formula that would minimize gerrymanding, one party would oppose it as being racist. We all know which party that would be.

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”?

Sounds fun.

I think it is time to stop acting as though nothing has changed since 1960. Measures like this were introduced and designed to correct historical racism. I would presume once that was corrected, they should melt away - but some seem to want the corrections to last for centuries or millennia. But looking around, most, maybe all of the discrimination I saw in the 50s and 60s is corrected. We have had a black president and a black presidential candidate, numerous black Senators and congressmen, black Cabinet members, black generals, black CEOs, black whatever. Neighborhoods are integrated, schools are integrated. Nobody notices when a black family enters a restaurant. The KKK has dwindled from a power to a Non sequitur. Why keep fighting a battle that is over? Only for the aggrandizement of the fighters for those battles.

JMHO

(10-18-2025 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Gerrymandering by both sides for political advantage has become so widespread that it hardly seems a crime anymore. it's like driving 5 MPH over the limit - nobody should do it, everybody does it, and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Everybody agrees it should be stopped, but nobody has decent idea of how to effectively and fairly do it. The so-called "bipartisan" commissions are appointed by partisan politicians or elected, with the nominees running representing a party.

Maybe let the Libertarians do it.

But that is gerrymandering for politics. Gerymandering for race is a horse of a different color (pun intended), even though it could be considered to also be gerrymandering for political advantage.

Th civil War and Reconstruction were a long time ago, as was the VRA. The world has changed mightily since then. As a child in the 50's and 60's, I remember many municipalities having something called White Citizen's Councils. Haven't heard of one lately. I remember those kids being escorted into Little Rock Central. Have seen anything like that lately. I remember George Wallace and James Merdith. Haven't seen those situations lately either.

I remember "colored Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, and dining areas. Haven't seen one in decades.

When I was a kid, I estimate that 50% of whites were segregationists. Now I estimate that it is closer to .005%.

The battle is over. Yet some people keep fighting it because without that fight, their personal value as a leader or fighter is diminished.

Race should have no bearing on the drawing of districts, just as it should have no bearing in hiring or firing. JMO.

I recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine bout different methods of determining mountain heights other than sheer height above mean seas level. One was called "jut", and used a mathematical formula to determine which mountains had the most extreme changes in elevation from the base. Why cannot a similar formula be applied to districts, making the most extreme shapes - the one with most "jut" - illegal? No more districts that look like highway maps.

I guarantee you, though, if somebody proposed using a similar formula that would minimize gerrymanding, one party would oppose it as being racist. We all know which party that would be.

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”?

Sounds fun.

I think it is time to stop acting as though nothing has changed since 1960. Measures like this were introduced and designed to correct historical racism. I would presume once that was corrected, they should melt away - but some seem to want the corrections to last for centuries or millennia. But looking around, most, maybe all of the discrimination I saw in the 50s and 60s is corrected. We have had a black president and a black presidential candidate, numerous black Senators and congressmen, black Cabinet members, black generals, black CEOs, black whatever. Neighborhoods are integrated, schools are integrated. Nobody notices when a black family enters a restaurant. The KKK has dwindled from a power to a Non sequitur. Why keep fighting a battle that is over? Only for the aggrandizement of the fighters for those battles.

JMHO

No one doubts there are significant changes between the start of the Civil Rights era and present.

My comment stands irrespective of that.

Sec 2 of the VRA says "if and when* a group can show the predicate for VRA 2 to apply, it will.

Many states are actually subject to VRA because groups *show* the predicate prongs of the test. Present tense, mind you. Irrespective of you comparison to the past and far broader and deeper discriminatory effects. That is, again, a present test, not a relative to the past test that seems to be the driving issue you have above

So great, I'll give you all of the non-germane comparisons you make above to the past. None affects the predicate that groups face currently, and must prove to gain access to the operation of the VRA and the impact in districting.

In this case, your true comments of 'it was worse then' have zero bearing on what groups have to show and prove to gain access to the effects of VRA 2 at the present.

(10-18-2025 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Gerrymandering by both sides for political advantage has become so widespread that it hardly seems a crime anymore. it's like driving 5 MPH over the limit - nobody should do it, everybody does it, and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Everybody agrees it should be stopped, but nobody has decent idea of how to effectively and fairly do it. The so-called "bipartisan" commissions are appointed by partisan politicians or elected, with the nominees running representing a party.

Maybe let the Libertarians do it.

But that is gerrymandering for politics. Gerymandering for race is a horse of a different color (pun intended), even though it could be considered to also be gerrymandering for political advantage.

Th civil War and Reconstruction were a long time ago, as was the VRA. The world has changed mightily since then. As a child in the 50's and 60's, I remember many municipalities having something called White Citizen's Councils. Haven't heard of one lately. I remember those kids being escorted into Little Rock Central. Have seen anything like that lately. I remember George Wallace and James Merdith. Haven't seen those situations lately either.

I remember "colored Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, and dining areas. Haven't seen one in decades.

When I was a kid, I estimate that 50% of whites were segregationists. Now I estimate that it is closer to .005%.

The battle is over. Yet some people keep fighting it because without that fight, their personal value as a leader or fighter is diminished.

Race should have no bearing on the drawing of districts, just as it should have no bearing in hiring or firing. JMO.

I recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine bout different methods of determining mountain heights other than sheer height above mean seas level. One was called "jut", and used a mathematical formula to determine which mountains had the most extreme changes in elevation from the base. Why cannot a similar formula be applied to districts, making the most extreme shapes - the one with most "jut" - illegal? No more districts that look like highway maps.

I guarantee you, though, if somebody proposed using a similar formula that would minimize gerrymanding, one party would oppose it as being racist. We all know which party that would be.

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”?

Sounds fun.

I think it is time to stop acting as though nothing has changed since 1960. Measures like this were introduced and designed to correct historical racism. I would presume once that was corrected, they should melt away - but some seem to want the corrections to last for centuries or millennia. But looking around, most, maybe all of the discrimination I saw in the 50s and 60s is corrected. We have had a black president and a black presidential candidate, numerous black Senators and congressmen, black Cabinet members, black generals, black CEOs, black whatever. Neighborhoods are integrated, schools are integrated. Nobody notices when a black family enters a restaurant. The KKK has dwindled from a power to a Non sequitur. Why keep fighting a battle that is over? Only for the aggrandizement of the fighters for those battles.

JMHO

No one doubts there are significant changes between the start of the Civil Rights era and present.

My comment stands irrespective of that.

Sec 2 of the VRA says "if and when* a group can show the predicate for VRA 2 to apply, it will.

Many states are actually subject to VRA because groups *show* the predicate prongs of the test. Present tense, mind you. Irrespective of you comparison to the past and far broader and deeper discriminatory effects. That is, again, a present test, not a relative to the past test that seems to be the driving issue you have above

So great, I'll give you all of the non-germane comparisons you make above to the past. None affects the predicate that groups face currently, and must prove to gain access to the operation of the VRA and the impact in districting.

In this case, your true comments of 'it was worse then' have zero bearing on what groups have to show and prove to gain access to the effects of VRA 2 at the present.

Maybe it is time to rescind or modify the VRA to reflect the realities of 2025, and to stop trying to correct the inequities of 1935 with 1960's legislation.

You may well be right about the requirements of that outdated and currently unneeded law, but as usual, I am reminded that in every courtroom there are two lawyers who believe the other is wrong.

It will be hard to meld us into one color blind society as long we continue to see color and treat people differently because of it. All these special treatments of one group or another just serve to emphasize and preserve our differences rather than to emphasize our sameness.

True equality is treating everybody the same, based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

(10-19-2025 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Gerrymandering by both sides for political advantage has become so widespread that it hardly seems a crime anymore. it's like driving 5 MPH over the limit - nobody should do it, everybody does it, and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Everybody agrees it should be stopped, but nobody has decent idea of how to effectively and fairly do it. The so-called "bipartisan" commissions are appointed by partisan politicians or elected, with the nominees running representing a party.

Maybe let the Libertarians do it.

But that is gerrymandering for politics. Gerymandering for race is a horse of a different color (pun intended), even though it could be considered to also be gerrymandering for political advantage.

Th civil War and Reconstruction were a long time ago, as was the VRA. The world has changed mightily since then. As a child in the 50's and 60's, I remember many municipalities having something called White Citizen's Councils. Haven't heard of one lately. I remember those kids being escorted into Little Rock Central. Have seen anything like that lately. I remember George Wallace and James Merdith. Haven't seen those situations lately either.

I remember "colored Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, and dining areas. Haven't seen one in decades.

When I was a kid, I estimate that 50% of whites were segregationists. Now I estimate that it is closer to .005%.

The battle is over. Yet some people keep fighting it because without that fight, their personal value as a leader or fighter is diminished.

Race should have no bearing on the drawing of districts, just as it should have no bearing in hiring or firing. JMO.

I recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine bout different methods of determining mountain heights other than sheer height above mean seas level. One was called "jut", and used a mathematical formula to determine which mountains had the most extreme changes in elevation from the base. Why cannot a similar formula be applied to districts, making the most extreme shapes - the one with most "jut" - illegal? No more districts that look like highway maps.

I guarantee you, though, if somebody proposed using a similar formula that would minimize gerrymanding, one party would oppose it as being racist. We all know which party that would be.

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”?

Sounds fun.

I think it is time to stop acting as though nothing has changed since 1960. Measures like this were introduced and designed to correct historical racism. I would presume once that was corrected, they should melt away - but some seem to want the corrections to last for centuries or millennia. But looking around, most, maybe all of the discrimination I saw in the 50s and 60s is corrected. We have had a black president and a black presidential candidate, numerous black Senators and congressmen, black Cabinet members, black generals, black CEOs, black whatever. Neighborhoods are integrated, schools are integrated. Nobody notices when a black family enters a restaurant. The KKK has dwindled from a power to a Non sequitur. Why keep fighting a battle that is over? Only for the aggrandizement of the fighters for those battles.

JMHO

No one doubts there are significant changes between the start of the Civil Rights era and present.

My comment stands irrespective of that.

Sec 2 of the VRA says "if and when* a group can show the predicate for VRA 2 to apply, it will.

Many states are actually subject to VRA because groups *show* the predicate prongs of the test. Present tense, mind you. Irrespective of you comparison to the past and far broader and deeper discriminatory effects. That is, again, a present test, not a relative to the past test that seems to be the driving issue you have above

So great, I'll give you all of the non-germane comparisons you make above to the past. None affects the predicate that groups face currently, and must prove to gain access to the operation of the VRA and the impact in districting.

In this case, your true comments of 'it was worse then' have zero bearing on what groups have to show and prove to gain access to the effects of VRA 2 at the present.

Maybe it is time to rescind or modify the VRA to reflect the realities of 2025, and to stop trying to correct the inequities of 1935 with 1960's legislation.

You may well be right about the requirements of that outdated and currently unneeded law, but as usual, I am reminded that in every courtroom there are two lawyers who believe the other is wrong.

It will be hard to meld us into one color blind society as long we continue to see color and treat people differently because of it. All these special treatments of one group or another just serve to emphasize and preserve our differences rather than to emphasize our sameness.

True equality is treating everybody the same, based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Three points :

1. As to rescind or modify, I think that stupid. I have zero problem having a remedy in legislation in place for *any* time the predicate for discrimination in representation is met. Apparently you think that solely reactionary remedy should be removed.

2. Please be specific in the verbiage of VRA act that pertains solely to blacks? Hint: itdoesnt. It is in fact a race neutral act and requires proof of current discrimatory to make it past a motion to dismiss. Quite horrific for some I fathom.

3. If you think about it, VRA is a counter to your statements above. The only way a VRA sec 2 claim survives is to show one group being discriminated against by a state in voting districts. That is, the claim only survives to address the already shown and proven ipdisctiminatory situation.

If and when you can show your perfect world scenario you go on about, then literally there will be no successful VRA act 2 claims.

If you doubt the presence of that test (which you seemingly do in your pout about two attorneys above and such, just look it up. To rocket jump you in that 'look it up before snarking', iirc it is known as the Gingles test I actually provided the prongs earlier, so you can check them out above.

(10-19-2025 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-19-2025 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 09:52 AM)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”?

Sounds fun.

I think it is time to stop acting as though nothing has changed since 1960. Measures like this were introduced and designed to correct historical racism. I would presume once that was corrected, they should melt away - but some seem to want the corrections to last for centuries or millennia. But looking around, most, maybe all of the discrimination I saw in the 50s and 60s is corrected. We have had a black president and a black presidential candidate, numerous black Senators and congressmen, black Cabinet members, black generals, black CEOs, black whatever. Neighborhoods are integrated, schools are integrated. Nobody notices when a black family enters a restaurant. The KKK has dwindled from a power to a Non sequitur. Why keep fighting a battle that is over? Only for the aggrandizement of the fighters for those battles.

JMHO

No one doubts there are significant changes between the start of the Civil Rights era and present.

My comment stands irrespective of that.

Sec 2 of the VRA says "if and when* a group can show the predicate for VRA 2 to apply, it will.

Many states are actually subject to VRA because groups *show* the predicate prongs of the test. Present tense, mind you. Irrespective of you comparison to the past and far broader and deeper discriminatory effects. That is, again, a present test, not a relative to the past test that seems to be the driving issue you have above

So great, I'll give you all of the non-germane comparisons you make above to the past. None affects the predicate that groups face currently, and must prove to gain access to the operation of the VRA and the impact in districting.

In this case, your true comments of 'it was worse then' have zero bearing on what groups have to show and prove to gain access to the effects of VRA 2 at the present.

Maybe it is time to rescind or modify the VRA to reflect the realities of 2025, and to stop trying to correct the inequities of 1935 with 1960's legislation.

You may well be right about the requirements of that outdated and currently unneeded law, but as usual, I am reminded that in every courtroom there are two lawyers who believe the other is wrong.

It will be hard to meld us into one color blind society as long we continue to see color and treat people differently because of it. All these special treatments of one group or another just serve to emphasize and preserve our differences rather than to emphasize our sameness.

True equality is treating everybody the same, based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Three points :

1. As to rescind or modify, I think that stupid. I have zero problem having a remedy in legislation in place for *any* time the predicate for discrimination in representation is met. Apparently you think that solely reactionary remedy should be removed.

2. Please be specific in the verbiage of VRA act that pertains solely to blacks? Hint: itdoesnt. It is in fact a race neutral act and requires proof of current discrimatory to make it past a motion to dismiss. Quite horrific for some I fathom.

3. If you think about it, VRA is a counter to your statements above. The only way a VRA sec 2 claim survives is to show one group being discriminated against by a state in voting districts. That is, the claim only survives to address the already shown and proven ipdisctiminatory situation.

If and when you can show your perfect world scenario you go on about, then literally there will be no successful VRA act 2 claims.

If you doubt the presence of that test (which you seemingly do in your pout about two attorneys above and such, just look it up. To rocket jump you in that 'look it up before snarking', iirc it is known as the Gingles test I actually provided the prongs earlier, so you can check them out above.

Perfect world? You will have to show me where I said that, as my failing memory cannot.

But I do remember now why I have you on Ignore - your snarkiness. I guess we can just write off this experiment at civil discussion as failed.

The two attorney thing was to show that that a legal opinion is just that, an opinion, and that other attorneys often have other, contradictory, opinions. Even the SCOTUS rarely votes 9-0.

I have given my opinion, and you have given yours. Neither has been sufficient to budge the other, so let's just let it go.

(10-20-2025 12:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2025 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-19-2025 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it is time to stop acting as though nothing has changed since 1960. Measures like this were introduced and designed to correct historical racism. I would presume once that was corrected, they should melt away - but some seem to want the corrections to last for centuries or millennia. But looking around, most, maybe all of the discrimination I saw in the 50s and 60s is corrected. We have had a black president and a black presidential candidate, numerous black Senators and congressmen, black Cabinet members, black generals, black CEOs, black whatever. Neighborhoods are integrated, schools are integrated. Nobody notices when a black family enters a restaurant. The KKK has dwindled from a power to a Non sequitur. Why keep fighting a battle that is over? Only for the aggrandizement of the fighters for those battles.

JMHO

No one doubts there are significant changes between the start of the Civil Rights era and present.

My comment stands irrespective of that.

Sec 2 of the VRA says "if and when* a group can show the predicate for VRA 2 to apply, it will.

Many states are actually subject to VRA because groups *show* the predicate prongs of the test. Present tense, mind you. Irrespective of you comparison to the past and far broader and deeper discriminatory effects. That is, again, a present test, not a relative to the past test that seems to be the driving issue you have above

So great, I'll give you all of the non-germane comparisons you make above to the past. None affects the predicate that groups face currently, and must prove to gain access to the operation of the VRA and the impact in districting.

In this case, your true comments of 'it was worse then' have zero bearing on what groups have to show and prove to gain access to the effects of VRA 2 at the present.

Maybe it is time to rescind or modify the VRA to reflect the realities of 2025, and to stop trying to correct the inequities of 1935 with 1960's legislation.

You may well be right about the requirements of that outdated and currently unneeded law, but as usual, I am reminded that in every courtroom there are two lawyers who believe the other is wrong.

It will be hard to meld us into one color blind society as long we continue to see color and treat people differently because of it. All these special treatments of one group or another just serve to emphasize and preserve our differences rather than to emphasize our sameness.

True equality is treating everybody the same, based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Three points :

1. As to rescind or modify, I think that stupid. I have zero problem having a remedy in legislation in place for *any* time the predicate for discrimination in representation is met. Apparently you think that solely reactionary remedy should be removed.

2. Please be specific in the verbiage of VRA act that pertains solely to blacks? Hint: itdoesnt. It is in fact a race neutral act and requires proof of current discrimatory to make it past a motion to dismiss. Quite horrific for some I fathom.

3. If you think about it, VRA is a counter to your statements above. The only way a VRA sec 2 claim survives is to show one group being discriminated against by a state in voting districts. That is, the claim only survives to address the already shown and proven ipdisctiminatory situation.

If and when you can show your perfect world scenario you go on about, then literally there will be no successful VRA act 2 claims.

If you doubt the presence of that test (which you seemingly do in your pout about two attorneys above and such, just look it up. To rocket jump you in that 'look it up before snarking', iirc it is known as the Gingles test I actually provided the prongs earlier, so you can check them out above.

Perfect world? You will have to show me where I said that, as my failing memory cannot.

But I do remember now why I have you on Ignore - your snarkiness. I guess we can just write off this experiment at civil discussion as failed.

The two attorney thing was to show that that a legal opinion is just that, an opinion, and that other attorneys often have other, contradictory, opinions. Even the SCOTUS rarely votes 9-0.

I have given my opinion, and you have given yours. Neither has been sufficient to budge the other, so let's just let it go.

I am glad that you denote the VRA as outdated and unneeded and proceed to judge it when it appears that you know, aside from the title of the law, pretty much next to nothing about its structure and function.

And, to repeat, nothing I have said above renders a legal opinion about an outcome. Simply the factual presence of the underlying test which marks the actual factual hurdle to a successful plaintiff. Notwithstanding your soliloquy above.

As to the “perfect world” —-

Quote:It will be hard to meld us into one color blind society

My apologies to reword the former into the latter.

My position is that an enforcement mechanism *should* be in place. I guess you believe in some odd sense the 14th and 15th are (and will be) self-executing issues of law. I have zero problem with an actual avenue to remediate any issues of discrimination if and when it occurs, and with a proper predicate that a plaintiff has to show to proceed. In literally a color-blind portion of the law.

And in all honesty, the non-colorblind portion of the law (Sec 3 preclearance based on a geographic state) *was* removed. And I had zero problem with that.

I’m sorry that a colorblind enforcement mechanism is such the emotional trigger for you. Cest le vie, I guess.

Without opening or reading Tanq's last post, I want to make it clear that I do not question his opinion on the law. He may well be right, but his legal accuracy is not at question here. I question the need for such laws in 2025 and I question the effect of such laws.

Yesterday I played in a poker tournament which included many people of all races and both sexes. In fact, the man who eventually knocked me out was black. I know that establishment does not need any laws to welcome all people to play. The local HEB does not need any laws to allow people of certain races to shop. No business does these days, unless maybe it is a KKK store in Idaho, selling pointy sheets and torches to a niche market.

But IMO there is an effect of racially divisive laws that either specifically state requirements for one race to be treated differently, or in practice end up being used for the benefit of one race. The effects are to continue to point out and emphasize our differences and to sometimes engender resentment. Nobody likes being discriminated against because of the color of their skin. Not anybody of any race.

If we are ever to become a nation in which everybody is treated the same without regard to race, at some point discriminatory laws must fade away, whether these laws discriminate in favor of or against this race or that one.

The alternative is to keep the discriminatory laws forever. Will we still need gerrymandered voting districts to ensure black representation in 2350? I hope not. I expect not, but I think it is more likely that we will if we continue discriminating on the basis race.

I think it is time to start phasing out some of these laws, with an eye to eventually eliminating them.

JMHO. I am sure many people differ from me for many and varied reasons.

Yes, how dare we maintain a law that if a group, any group (which by its terms include everybody), that is afforded protections under the 14th and 15th amendments (again-- everybody) can show discrimatory effects in voting by a state, or any subdivision, have a statute for recourse. That is --- *if* they prove the discrimatory action or effect, how dare there be any statute that defines a recourse for that. The sheer horror.....

The unmitigated gall, having a statutory recourse if / when that happens, znd if /when it can be shown in sufficient manner in snd before a court. Im appalled at that travesty. /sarcasm off.

So, without reading -- your comments are miles off target. Maybe a reason for not attempting to respond to a comment you dot read, or choose not to read.

(10-16-2025 03:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

For many politicians in favor of race-based gerrymandering, that's the point. Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning.

Of course. I understand your over-arching question about ‘is it time’, but I think the idea that you must be unequal ‘going forward’ in order to right some previous wrong. When women were allowed to vote, we didn’t give them 1.25 votes for 30+ years in order to make up for denying them the right to vote. I don’t think we gave Asians a darn thing… or natives. Now we DID allow them their own nation… so maybe there is another precedent…. But we didn’t give them special treatment beyond their borders.

Quote:

Quote:When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

Unfortunately while correct for the founders, that doesnt necessarily survive the Civil War amendments. And the VRA puts into place race based criteria such that a minority isnt gerrymandered into nothingness.

But there is a difference between gerrymandering something into nothingness, and ensuring racial representation.

Just spitballing…. I don’t have an answer…. In the simplest example of a state with only one House rep, NO minority is ensured of representation…. In fact, one could argue (based SOLELY on that presumption) that the entire premise of a single representative for a state violates the VRA. That of course isn’t the only presumption, but one could argue that. In fact, every minority that isn’t ensured a majority is arguably being mistreated… relative to any minority that is. As in, even if a minority made up 30% of the voters in Montana…. Even if they all lived in one city… and even represented a majority of that city.…. they would not have the same ‘power’ that a 30% minority in Houston might. Heck…. What about the minority majority people who live in districts designed to ensure minority representation…. Isn’t that by desigb, disenfranchising them?

My quick idea of requiring physical boundaries… responding to George’s idea…. Perhaps requiring a change to the population of any district beyond some set threshold…. Like 10%…. or the number of districts to redraw the lines. So decisions are set, and changes in the makeup of the population have no impact.


Bottom line is that IMO, no other type of minority…. Whether it be religion pr gender or sexual orientation or of course, any race that isn’t in favor by the party doing the drawing is given the protections of designed representation….. and while I get the knee jerk reaction for ‘a make—up call’…. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

(10-24-2025 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

For many politicians in favor of race-based gerrymandering, that's the point. Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning.

Of course. I understand your over-arching question about ‘is it time’, but I think the idea that you must be unequal ‘going forward’ in order to right some previous wrong. When women were allowed to vote, we didn’t give them 1.25 votes for 30+ years in order to make up for denying them the right to vote. I don’t think we gave Asians a darn thing… or natives. Now we DID allow them their own nation… so maybe there is another precedent…. But we didn’t give them special treatment beyond their borders.

Quote:

Quote:When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

Unfortunately while correct for the founders, that doesnt necessarily survive the Civil War amendments. And the VRA puts into place race based criteria such that a minority isnt gerrymandered into nothingness.

But there is a difference between gerrymandering something into nothingness, and ensuring racial representation.

And that is why VRA Sec 2 was put into place.

Prior to VRA, there were *no* (or practically no) Representatives of color -- even in the 40% black states.

Afterwards there were.

Ie. -- using the historical record for the statement of 'gerrymandered into nothingness'.

Quote:Just spitballing…. I don’t have an answer…. In the simplest example of a state with only one House rep, NO minority is ensured of representation…. In fact, one could argue (based SOLELY on that presumption) that the entire premise of a single representative for a state violates the VRA.

Nope. Apportionment cant be written away itself.

Quote:That of course isn’t the only presumption, but one could argue that. In fact, every minority that isn’t ensured a majority is arguably being mistreated… relative to any minority that is. As in, even if a minority made up 30% of the voters in Montana…. Even if they all lived in one city… and even represented a majority of that city.…. they would not have the same ‘power’ that a 30% minority in Houston might.

The issue of a combination of statewide apportionment, and statewide minority representation -- with the heavy caveat that the rest of the elements of the test for relief under the VRA Sec. 2.

As an example:
In Texas -- 38 seats. Hispanics -- 40+ % of population.

when one shows that the minority has a disproportionate number of seats, they are concentrated into certain areas, and that the minority typically votes differently than the majority (or in Texas case plurality) -- then a certain number of minority majority districts should be effectuated.

In Montana --- 2 seats. With 2 seats it seems to be practically impossible to meet the test elements. Given that one seat represents literally 50% of the state representation,


You example overlooks the actual mechanisms of VRA Sec 2.

Quote:Heck…. What about the minority majority people who live in districts designed to ensure minority representation…. Isn’t that by desigb, disenfranchising them?

Nope, see above. The test is more of a macro view — a test among first the voters that elect a plurality of representatives, second their concentration in the larger parent electorate, third if the physical concentration of the minority in the larger voter electorate could be ptacricable to sustain a district, and fourth if the minority typically votes different than the majority.

In another view, The VRA is designed to explicitly remediate a situation where amongst a voting whole, the majority race enjoys the benefits of discrimination that leads to far greater representation than their actual proportion, when the minority is concentrated enough and votes distinctly different than the whole of the entire majority across the voting subdivisions.

The VRA literally doesnt care about any specific issue in any unit subdivision. The view is one across the electorate as a whole, and whether any minority race across that whole of th3 electorate suffers from an overall discrimination based upon the lines that divide that whole into the constituent voting subdivisions.

Quote:t IMO, no other type of minority…. Whether it be religion pr gender or sexual orientation or of course, any race that isn’t in favor by the party doing the drawing is given the protections of designed representation….. and while I get the knee jerk reaction for ‘a make—up call’…. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

VRA Sec 2 isnt a make up call. It is a race neutral statute that defines the remedy for *actual* *present day* *provable* digressions of the 14th and 15th Amendment.

You would have been accurate to denote VRA Sec 5 as a make up call (that is the pre-clearance section, *requiring* certain states to pre-submit districting based on historical issues.)

But your labeling of Sec.2 as the bolded simply isnt accurate. And further, both Sec. 2 and rhe 15th amendment is not applicable to the gamut of distinctions you point to within your comments italicized.

In all honesty, I actually am in line with 'minimize the weird ass boundaries' that are a result of gerrymnandering. But gerrymandering *has* to be divided into two buckets -- those that are optional and those that are a function of adherence to VRA. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of the issues of gerrymandering are a result of the optional sort. As an example, California had minimal gerrymandering issues, mainly due to to the commission that was enacted to set the booundaries. And one has to remember that California probably has the *most* stringent requirements to adhere to VRA Sec 2 -- based solely on the gamut of minorities in its borders *and* a large delegation body that feeds the issue. What allowed an easier time for California was that at least one prong of VRA Sec 2 allowed less strict compliance was -- the disparity between the voting habits of the state majority and that of the resident minorities.

That simply isnt the case for many of the Southern red states. Resulting in much more VRA Sec 2 activity in those southern red states. And the distinction between California and the southern red states highlights the error you make -- that the VRA SEc 2 is mandate based solely on race and 'make up call' angst. VRA Sec 2 is a section that allows a party a direct path for enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments, and is based solely on *present* discriminatory structure. There is *no* mnechanism in VRA Sec 2 to allow or even use as part of the isse the idea of a 'make up call'.

If you wish to keep denoting it as succh, I would liike you to denote anywhere *in the law* or in the judicial tests for the law such a 'make up call' component.

(10-24-2025 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

For many politicians in favor of race-based gerrymandering, that's the point. Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning.

Of course. I understand your over-arching question about ‘is it time’, but I think the idea that you must be unequal ‘going forward’ in order to right some previous wrong. When women were allowed to vote, we didn’t give them 1.25 votes for 30+ years in order to make up for denying them the right to vote. I don’t think we gave Asians a darn thing… or natives. Now we DID allow them their own nation… so maybe there is another precedent…. But we didn’t give them special treatment beyond their borders.

Quote:

Quote:When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

Unfortunately while correct for the founders, that doesnt necessarily survive the Civil War amendments. And the VRA puts into place race based criteria such that a minority isnt gerrymandered into nothingness.

But there is a difference between gerrymandering something into nothingness, and ensuring racial representation.

Just spitballing…. I don’t have an answer…. In the simplest example of a state with only one House rep, NO minority is ensured of representation…. In fact, one could argue (based SOLELY on that presumption) that the entire premise of a single representative for a state violates the VRA. That of course isn’t the only presumption, but one could argue that. In fact, every minority that isn’t ensured a majority is arguably being mistreated… relative to any minority that is. As in, even if a minority made up 30% of the voters in Montana…. Even if they all lived in one city… and even represented a majority of that city.…. they would not have the same ‘power’ that a 30% minority in Houston might. Heck…. What about the minority majority people who live in districts designed to ensure minority representation…. Isn’t that by desigb, disenfranchising them?

My quick idea of requiring physical boundaries… responding to George’s idea…. Perhaps requiring a change to the population of any district beyond some set threshold…. Like 10%…. or the number of districts to redraw the lines. So decisions are set, and changes in the makeup of the population have no impact.


Bottom line is that IMO, no other type of minority…. Whether it be religion pr gender or sexual orientation or of course, any race that isn’t in favor by the party doing the drawing is given the protections of designed representation….. and while I get the knee jerk reaction for ‘a make—up call’…. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Well said. BUT...

Your example of 1.25 votes for women for 30 years" has one flaw - to be parallel to the make up calls for blacks,, it should be "1.5 votes for women in perpetuity". It should also include additional funding for women's colleges and quotas for hiring and promoting women - both in perpetuity.

I never did like the idea that we must reverse discriminate to make up for past mistreatments. My mother taught me that two wrongs do not ever make a right. My idea has always been to stop the bad behavior and do right going forward. Probably why I could not be a Democrat, despite my best efforts when I was young.

(10-25-2025 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2025 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:Anything else I can think of only seems to ensure battles until the end of time.

For many politicians in favor of race-based gerrymandering, that's the point. Lots of votes riding on keeping the fires of hate burning.

Of course. I understand your over-arching question about ‘is it time’, but I think the idea that you must be unequal ‘going forward’ in order to right some previous wrong. When women were allowed to vote, we didn’t give them 1.25 votes for 30+ years in order to make up for denying them the right to vote. I don’t think we gave Asians a darn thing… or natives. Now we DID allow them their own nation… so maybe there is another precedent…. But we didn’t give them special treatment beyond their borders.

Quote:

Quote:When the founders designed the system, they stipulated only that population be the determinant for the size of districts.... so I think logically (there is more to it than this) that the court will determine that race should play NO part in apportionment.

Unfortunately while correct for the founders, that doesnt necessarily survive the Civil War amendments. And the VRA puts into place race based criteria such that a minority isnt gerrymandered into nothingness.

But there is a difference between gerrymandering something into nothingness, and ensuring racial representation.

Just spitballing…. I don’t have an answer…. In the simplest example of a state with only one House rep, NO minority is ensured of representation…. In fact, one could argue (based SOLELY on that presumption) that the entire premise of a single representative for a state violates the VRA. That of course isn’t the only presumption, but one could argue that. In fact, every minority that isn’t ensured a majority is arguably being mistreated… relative to any minority that is. As in, even if a minority made up 30% of the voters in Montana…. Even if they all lived in one city… and even represented a majority of that city.…. they would not have the same ‘power’ that a 30% minority in Houston might. Heck…. What about the minority majority people who live in districts designed to ensure minority representation…. Isn’t that by desigb, disenfranchising them?

My quick idea of requiring physical boundaries… responding to George’s idea…. Perhaps requiring a change to the population of any district beyond some set threshold…. Like 10%…. or the number of districts to redraw the lines. So decisions are set, and changes in the makeup of the population have no impact.


Bottom line is that IMO, no other type of minority…. Whether it be religion pr gender or sexual orientation or of course, any race that isn’t in favor by the party doing the drawing is given the protections of designed representation….. and while I get the knee jerk reaction for ‘a make—up call’…. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Well said. BUT...

Your example of 1.25 votes for women for 30 years" has one flaw - to be parallel to the make up calls for blacks,, it should be "1.5 votes for women in perpetuity". It should also include additional funding for women's colleges and quotas for hiring and promoting women - both in perpetuity.

I never did like the idea that we must reverse discriminate to make up for past mistreatments. My mother taught me that two wrongs do not ever make a right. My idea has always been to stop the bad behavior and do right going forward. Probably why I could not be a Democrat, despite my best efforts when I was young.

Too bad your rhetorical comments in your second to last paragraph have no connection to the actual operation in fact of the VRA Sec 2.

I just wonder how we will know when it is OK to start treating everybody equally, (which I thought was the goal), without regard to race, sex, or religion. When can we start judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?

Without clearly defined goals, I think the answer is never. Damn sure won't happen in my lifetime, but I think it will not happen in my great-grandchildren's lifetime either.

(10-26-2025 12:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just wonder how we will know when it is OK to start treating everybody equally, (which I thought was the goal), without regard to race, sex, or religion. When can we start judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?

Without clearly defined goals, I think the answer is never. Damn sure won't happen in my lifetime, but I think it will not happen in my great-grandchildren's lifetime either.

Once again, the districting stuff is a *remedy*, one that is in response to a claim that is *proven*. When there are no claims that are proven, then the remedy wont happen,

Perhaps you should articulate what other issues exist that engage your piquedness? Fairly problematic to engage with a broad, rhetorical claim.