Texas' redistricting/gerrymandering.

[Polk]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

I would find that perfectly agreeable.

 

[Intense]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

I would find that perfectly agreeable.

Unconstitutional. The Rules are very plain ans specific.

 

[Polk]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

I would find that perfectly agreeable.

Unconstitutional. The Rules are very plain ans specific.

How is it unconstitutional?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It seems the SCOTUS unanimously rejected their election map further putting their primary date in question. I asked the question if section5 of the voting rights act is still valid and it seems the supreme court thinks it is.

They require that rather then a Judge drawing a map, the ELECTED Legislature do so. As I recall NC had to redo theirs 3 or 4 times before it was accepted.That is the law, Those Judges in Texas ignored the law and got spanked for it. The legislature will redraw the map and have the responsibility to do so.

By the way? The NC problems were because the Democrats wouldn't follow State law.

 

[g5000]

Most Democrat pussies have a weird obsession with bashing Texas. It's not enough like San Fransicko and Assachusetts for them. They should just STFU and mind their own business.

They probably would if it was not a federal level issue that affects the outcome of national legislation.

That makes it everyone's business.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about this for a concept. At large representation. If the vote is 50-50, you appoint 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If it's 60-40, you appoint 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

I would find that perfectly agreeable.

Unconstitutional. The Rules are very plain ans specific.

House members are by the Constitution DIRECT Representatives of specific groups of people, the numbers to be established by the Federal Government and the local to be decided by the State Legislatures. Only Senators are State wide elections and only because the Constitution was amended to make that the case.

 

[Intense]

I would find that perfectly agreeable.

Unconstitutional. The Rules are very plain ans specific.

How is it unconstitutional?

Here is the Foundation.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text[/QUOTE]

Here is where the Court decided to get involved.

Redistricting Law
The body of law governing redistricting essentially began in 1962 when the Supreme Court decided that political districts must afford each voter an equally weighted vote. This "one person, one vote" ruling necessitated the decennial process of redrawing legislative, congressional, and local political legislative boundaries in the U.S. With this process underway every decade, more complex legal issues have arisen concerning how districts are redrawn regarding, minority voting rights, political parties, citizenship, language, census data, military and overseas voters, district compactness, contiguity, and prisoners.

Redistricting Law- Information on Congressional Redistricting,legislative reapportionment, states, information

Here is Active Litigation

REDISTRICTINGONLINE.ORG
is a nonpartisan redistricting web gateway for citizens, professionals, academics, and anyone interested in the congressional, legislative, and local process of redistricting.

Cases

Did the Court bring Clarity and Simplification? With Congressional District Maps looking more like Picasso's than Impartial Redistricting Maps, is it really even Possible to be fair to all here? Actually no. Has not even more Chaos being created here? My District is more like Chop Suey. It doesn't represent me.

By Law the Redistricting is done once every 10 years, in compliance with State and Federal Constitutions. The Controlling Party does within reason get it's way.

Using the Courts to obstruct that process in some ways may be interpreted as Unconstitutional. If you have a good cause and argument to back it up, let it be heard. The Case should stand or fall on it's own merit. The boundaries set up by the lower Court in Texas, just fell on their own lack of merit. It is for the Legislature to do it's job in drawing boundaries.

 

[The T]

I dont think they should be able to gerrymander at all, I think they should be stuck with what they got and if they dont like it they can start to actually represent there constituents instead of the special interest groups.

^This^ (And not the groupthink mentality based on the amount of pigmentation in the skin).

 

[Polk]

Did the Court bring Clarity and Simplification? With Congressional District Maps looking more like Picasso's than Impartial Redistricting Maps, is it really even Possible to be fair to all here? Actually no. Has not even more Chaos being created here? My District is more like Chop Suey. It doesn't represent me.

By Law the Redistricting is done once every 10 years, in compliance with State and Federal Constitutions. The Controlling Party does within reason get it's way.

Using the Courts to obstruct that process in some ways may be interpreted as Unconstitutional. If you have a good cause and argument to back it up, let it be heard. The Case should stand or fall on it's own merit. The boundaries set up by the lower Court in Texas, just fell on their own lack of merit. It is for the Legislature to do it's job in drawing boundaries.

1. Nothing in what you posted would prevent electing congressmen using proportional representation. What it does do is prevent the existence of both districts and at-large seats.
2. States can redistrict as often as they like, they just have to do it at least once every ten years.

 

[Intense]

Did the Court bring Clarity and Simplification? With Congressional District Maps looking more like Picasso's than Impartial Redistricting Maps, is it really even Possible to be fair to all here? Actually no. Has not even more Chaos being created here? My District is more like Chop Suey. It doesn't represent me.

By Law the Redistricting is done once every 10 years, in compliance with State and Federal Constitutions. The Controlling Party does within reason get it's way.

Using the Courts to obstruct that process in some ways may be interpreted as Unconstitutional. If you have a good cause and argument to back it up, let it be heard. The Case should stand or fall on it's own merit. The boundaries set up by the lower Court in Texas, just fell on their own lack of merit. It is for the Legislature to do it's job in drawing boundaries.

1. Nothing in what you posted would prevent electing congressmen using proportional representation. What it does do is prevent the existence of both districts and at-large seats.
2. States can redistrict as often as they like, they just have to do it at least once every ten years.

1. Proportional Representation, by design should not discriminate against the Majority Either. It is about Equal Representation, not Reverse Discrimination.

2. Redistricting, by design, takes place after the States receive the Census Information, every 10 years.

 

[Intense]

Tip of the Iceberg here. Best to go to the Link.


Redistricting Law 2010
Prepared by the
National Conference of State Legislatures
William T. Pound, Executive Director
7700 East First Place
Denver, Colorado 80230
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515
Washington, D.C. 20001
NCSL Home
November .........

1. INTRODUCTION
Since the earliest days of the republic, redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts after each
decennial census has been primarily the responsibility of the state legislatures. Following World War I, as the
nation’s population began to shift from rural to urban areas, many legislatures lost their enthusiasm for the
decennial task and failed to carry out their constitutional responsibility.
For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court declined repeated invitations to enter the “political thicket” 1 of redistricting
and refused to order the legislatures to carry out their duty. In 1962, however, in the seminal case of Baker v.
Carr,2 the Court held that the federal courts did have jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to
redistricting plans. The next year, in Gray v. Sanders, Justice Douglas declared: “The conception of political
equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth,
and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.”3 In 1964, in Wesberry v. Sanders,
the Court held that congressional districts must be redrawn so that “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in
a congressional election is ... worth as much as another’s.”4 And, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Court held that the
boundaries of legislative districts must be redrawn and that the “overriding objective must be substantial equality
of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that
of any other citizen in the State.”5
While the courts were striking down redistricting plans for inequality of population, Congress enacted the Voting
Rights Act of 19656 to remedy the inequality of opportunity afforded to racial and ethnic minorities to participate
in elections. Section 2 of the act prohibited any state or political subdivision from imposing a “voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure to deny or abridge the right to vote on
account of race or color.”7 Section 5 required a covered jurisdiction to preclear any changes in its electoral laws,
2 Redistricting Law 2010
Id. at sec. 5 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1973c (2006)).
9 412 U.S. 735 (1973).
10 412 U.S. 755 (1973).
Coded as amended at 13 U.S.C. 11 § 141 (c).
12 462 U.S. 725 (1983).
13 425 U.S. 130 (1976).
14 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
Act of June 29, 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-205, sec. 3, 96 Stat. 131, 134 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 15 § 1973(a)
(2006)).
National Conference of State Legislatures
practices or procedures with either the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia before it could take effect. The Justice Department be 8 gan to use this new authority to require that
redistricting plans be precleared.
In the 1970s, in Gaffney v. Cummings9 and White v. Regester,10 the Court developed a standard of population
equality that required legislative districts to differ by no more than 10 percent from the smallest to the largest,
unless justified by some “rational state policy.”
In 1975, Congress acted to facilitate drawing the new districts with equal populations by enacting Public Law No.
94-171, which required the secretary of commerce to report census results no later than April 1 of the year
following the census to the governors and to the bodies or officials charged with state legislative redistricting.11
It also required the secretary to cooperate with state redistricting officials in developing a nonpartisan plan for
reporting census tabulations to them.
In the 1980s, in Karcher v. Daggett,12 the Court developed a standard of equality for congressional districts that
required them to be mathematically equal, unless justified by some “legitimate state objective.”
Although the Court’s work on rules for population equality was essentially completed in the 1980s, its rules for
treatment of racial and ethnic minorities were far from settled. In the 1970s, in Beer v. United States,13 the Court
had said that the Justice Department could refuse to preclear a redistricting plan if it would lead to a retrogression
in the position of racial minorities, that is, if the plan would be likely to cause fewer minority representatives to
be elected than before. The U.S. Supreme Court began the 1980s with City of Mobile v. Bolden,14 saying that a
plan would not be found to violate the 14th Amendment or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unless the plaintiffs
could prove that its drafters intended to discriminate against them. Congress was swift to react to this new
limitation on how to prove racial discrimination. In 1982, after most of the plans based on the 1980 census had
already been enacted, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to make clear that it applied to any
plan that results in discrimination against a member of a racial or ethnic minority group,15 regardless of the intent
of the plan’s drafters.
Introduction 3
16 478 U.S. 30.
17 478 U.S. at 50-51.
42 U.S. C. 18 § 1973(b) (2006).
19 478 U.S. at 50-51.
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 20 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
National Conference of State Legislatures
How were the courts to determine whether a redistricting plan would have discriminatory results? In the 1986
case of Thornburg v. Gingles, the Court set forth 16 three preconditions a minority group must prove in order to
establish a violation of Section 2:
1. That the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a
single-member district;
2. That it is politically cohesive, that is, it usually votes for the same candidates; and
3. That, in the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting by the White majority usually defeats the
minority’s preferred candidate.17
If the minority group could establish those three preconditions, it would be entitled to proceed to the next step:
proving a Section 2 violation by “the totality of the circumstances.” Those circumstances would have to show
that the members of the minority group had “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate
in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice.”18
What did that mean, “less opportunity?” In North Carolina, where Gingles arose, it meant that multimember
districts where Blacks were in the minority and had been unable to elect candidates to office had to be replaced
with single-member districts where Blacks were in the majority. To the rest of the country, and to the state
legislatures and commissions that would draw new districts after the 1990 census, it meant that wherever there
was a racial or ethnic minority that was “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority
in a single-member district,”19 the state would have to draw a district for them or risk having the plan thrown out,
even if the state acted without any intent to discriminate.
Being forewarned of the effects of Section 2, drafters of redistricting plans after the 1990 census went to great
lengths to draw majority-minority districts wherever the minority population counts seemed to justify it. In states
where redistricting plans could not take effect until they had been precleared by the Justice Department, the
Justice Department encouraged the state to draw districting plans that created new districts where members of
a racial or language minority group (primarily African Americans or Hispanics) were a majority of the population.
These new “majority-minority” districts were intended to protect the states from liability under Section 2 for
failing to draw districts that the minority group had a fair chance to win. As states drew the plans, they discovered
that the Justice Department had little concern that majority-minority districts be compact. In some cases, the
department refused to preclear a plan unless the state “maximized” the number of majority-minority districts by
drawing them wherever pockets of minority population could be strung together. As the plans were redrawn to
obtain preclearance, some districts took on bizarre shapes that caused them to be labeled “racial gerrymanders.”20
4 Redistricting Law 2010
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 21 509 U.S. 630 (1993); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995); Miller v. Johnson, 515
U.S. 900 (1995); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996); and Lawyer v. Dept.
of Justice, 521 U.S. 567 (1997).
Miller v. Johnson, 22 515 U.S. 900, 924-25 (1995).
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 23 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 24 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952
(1996); Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996).
See Easley v. Cromartie, 25 532 U.S. 234 (2001).
Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp.2d 25 (D. D.C. Apr. 5, 2002). 26
27 539 U.S. 461 (2003).
28 Id. at 480.
29 Id. at 483-84.
30 Pub. L. No. 109-246, sec. 5(d), 120 Stat. 581 (2006) (to be codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1973c); see H.R.
REP. NO. 109-478 at 93-94, reprinted in 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. 618, 678-79.
National Conference of State Legislatures
The racial gerrymanders were attacked in federal court for denying White voters their right to equal protection
of the laws under the 14 Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court publicly r th 21 ebuked the Justice Department for
its maximization policy in Georgia22 and held that a racial gerrymander must be subjected to “strict scrutiny” to
determine whether it was “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling state interest” in complying with Section
2.23 Many of the racial gerrymanders were struck down by the federal courts because their drafters had not
followed “traditional districting principles.”24

http://redistrictingonline.org/uploads/Redistrictinglaw2010.pdf

 

[thereisnospoon]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

Gerrymandering? Don't even go there. NC-12, Mel Watt's( DEMOCRAT- NC) district is the penultimate example of criminal gerrymandering.....Drawn by democrats..
Click on this link North Carolina and then select "12"...
Don't even start this shit.
This district is the WORST example of racial gerrymandering seen in the last 30 years. So stuff it.

 

[Intense]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

Gerrymandering? Don't even go there. NC-12, Mel Watt's( DEMOCRAT- NC) district is the penultimate example of criminal gerrymandering.....Drawn by democrats..
Click on this link North Carolina and then select "12"...
Don't even start this shit.
This district is the WORST example of racial gerrymandering seen in the last 30 years. So stuff it.

There has been allot of abuse. It needs to be directly confronted. My District is a total joke. They really break us up.

 

[Conservative]

Tip of the Iceberg here. Best to go to the Link.


Redistricting Law 2010
Prepared by the
National Conference of State Legislatures
William T. Pound, Executive Director
7700 East First Place
Denver, Colorado 80230
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515
Washington, D.C. 20001
NCSL Home
November .........

1. INTRODUCTION
Since the earliest days of the republic, redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts after each
decennial census has been primarily the responsibility of the state legislatures. Following World War I, as the
nation’s population began to shift from rural to urban areas, many legislatures lost their enthusiasm for the
decennial task and failed to carry out their constitutional responsibility.
For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court declined repeated invitations to enter the “political thicket” 1 of redistricting
and refused to order the legislatures to carry out their duty. In 1962, however, in the seminal case of Baker v.
Carr,2 the Court held that the federal courts did have jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to
redistricting plans. The next year, in Gray v. Sanders, Justice Douglas declared: “The conception of political
equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth,
and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.”3 In 1964, in Wesberry v. Sanders,
the Court held that congressional districts must be redrawn so that “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in
a congressional election is ... worth as much as another’s.”4 And, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Court held that the
boundaries of legislative districts must be redrawn and that the “overriding objective must be substantial equality
of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that
of any other citizen in the State.”5
While the courts were striking down redistricting plans for inequality of population, Congress enacted the Voting
Rights Act of 19656 to remedy the inequality of opportunity afforded to racial and ethnic minorities to participate
in elections. Section 2 of the act prohibited any state or political subdivision from imposing a “voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure to deny or abridge the right to vote on
account of race or color.”7 Section 5 required a covered jurisdiction to preclear any changes in its electoral laws,
2 Redistricting Law 2010
Id. at sec. 5 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1973c (2006)).
9 412 U.S. 735 (1973).
10 412 U.S. 755 (1973).
Coded as amended at 13 U.S.C. 11 § 141 (c).
12 462 U.S. 725 (1983).
13 425 U.S. 130 (1976).
14 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
Act of June 29, 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-205, sec. 3, 96 Stat. 131, 134 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 15 § 1973(a)
(2006)).
National Conference of State Legislatures
practices or procedures with either the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia before it could take effect. The Justice Department be 8 gan to use this new authority to require that
redistricting plans be precleared.
In the 1970s, in Gaffney v. Cummings9 and White v. Regester,10 the Court developed a standard of population
equality that required legislative districts to differ by no more than 10 percent from the smallest to the largest,
unless justified by some “rational state policy.”
In 1975, Congress acted to facilitate drawing the new districts with equal populations by enacting Public Law No.
94-171, which required the secretary of commerce to report census results no later than April 1 of the year
following the census to the governors and to the bodies or officials charged with state legislative redistricting.11
It also required the secretary to cooperate with state redistricting officials in developing a nonpartisan plan for
reporting census tabulations to them.
In the 1980s, in Karcher v. Daggett,12 the Court developed a standard of equality for congressional districts that
required them to be mathematically equal, unless justified by some “legitimate state objective.”
Although the Court’s work on rules for population equality was essentially completed in the 1980s, its rules for
treatment of racial and ethnic minorities were far from settled. In the 1970s, in Beer v. United States,13 the Court
had said that the Justice Department could refuse to preclear a redistricting plan if it would lead to a retrogression
in the position of racial minorities, that is, if the plan would be likely to cause fewer minority representatives to
be elected than before. The U.S. Supreme Court began the 1980s with City of Mobile v. Bolden,14 saying that a
plan would not be found to violate the 14th Amendment or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unless the plaintiffs
could prove that its drafters intended to discriminate against them. Congress was swift to react to this new
limitation on how to prove racial discrimination. In 1982, after most of the plans based on the 1980 census had
already been enacted, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to make clear that it applied to any
plan that results in discrimination against a member of a racial or ethnic minority group,15 regardless of the intent
of the plan’s drafters.
Introduction 3
16 478 U.S. 30.
17 478 U.S. at 50-51.
42 U.S. C. 18 § 1973(b) (2006).
19 478 U.S. at 50-51.
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 20 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
National Conference of State Legislatures
How were the courts to determine whether a redistricting plan would have discriminatory results? In the 1986
case of Thornburg v. Gingles, the Court set forth 16 three preconditions a minority group must prove in order to
establish a violation of Section 2:
1. That the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a
single-member district;
2. That it is politically cohesive, that is, it usually votes for the same candidates; and
3. That, in the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting by the White majority usually defeats the
minority’s preferred candidate.17
If the minority group could establish those three preconditions, it would be entitled to proceed to the next step:
proving a Section 2 violation by “the totality of the circumstances.” Those circumstances would have to show
that the members of the minority group had “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate
in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice.”18
What did that mean, “less opportunity?” In North Carolina, where Gingles arose, it meant that multimember
districts where Blacks were in the minority and had been unable to elect candidates to office had to be replaced
with single-member districts where Blacks were in the majority. To the rest of the country, and to the state
legislatures and commissions that would draw new districts after the 1990 census, it meant that wherever there
was a racial or ethnic minority that was “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority
in a single-member district,”19 the state would have to draw a district for them or risk having the plan thrown out,
even if the state acted without any intent to discriminate.
Being forewarned of the effects of Section 2, drafters of redistricting plans after the 1990 census went to great
lengths to draw majority-minority districts wherever the minority population counts seemed to justify it. In states
where redistricting plans could not take effect until they had been precleared by the Justice Department, the
Justice Department encouraged the state to draw districting plans that created new districts where members of
a racial or language minority group (primarily African Americans or Hispanics) were a majority of the population.
These new “majority-minority” districts were intended to protect the states from liability under Section 2 for
failing to draw districts that the minority group had a fair chance to win. As states drew the plans, they discovered
that the Justice Department had little concern that majority-minority districts be compact. In some cases, the
department refused to preclear a plan unless the state “maximized” the number of majority-minority districts by
drawing them wherever pockets of minority population could be strung together. As the plans were redrawn to
obtain preclearance, some districts took on bizarre shapes that caused them to be labeled “racial gerrymanders.”20
4 Redistricting Law 2010
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 21 509 U.S. 630 (1993); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995); Miller v. Johnson, 515
U.S. 900 (1995); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996); and Lawyer v. Dept.
of Justice, 521 U.S. 567 (1997).
Miller v. Johnson, 22 515 U.S. 900, 924-25 (1995).
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 23 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 24 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952
(1996); Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996).
See Easley v. Cromartie, 25 532 U.S. 234 (2001).
Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp.2d 25 (D. D.C. Apr. 5, 2002). 26
27 539 U.S. 461 (2003).
28 Id. at 480.
29 Id. at 483-84.
30 Pub. L. No. 109-246, sec. 5(d), 120 Stat. 581 (2006) (to be codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1973c); see H.R.
REP. NO. 109-478 at 93-94, reprinted in 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. 618, 678-79.
National Conference of State Legislatures
The racial gerrymanders were attacked in federal court for denying White voters their right to equal protection
of the laws under the 14 Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court publicly r th 21 ebuked the Justice Department for
its maximization policy in Georgia22 and held that a racial gerrymander must be subjected to “strict scrutiny” to
determine whether it was “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling state interest” in complying with Section
2.23 Many of the racial gerrymanders were struck down by the federal courts because their drafters had not
followed “traditional districting principles.”24

http://redistrictingonline.org/uploads/Redistrictinglaw2010.pdf

Lies, all lies! It's a vast right-wing conspiracy! It's Bush's fault!

 

[Conservative]

It seems Texas gained 4 million people in the last 10 years, 65% of them Hispanic, and redrew their maps to favor republicans who incidentally are not very fond of Hispanics, legal or illegal, and are involved with a host of legal challenges that threaten to further postpone their primary.

The trouble lies with the voting rights act of 1965, section 5 that requires them to clear all changes through either the Justice dept. or a special three judge panel in Washington, neither of which signed off on their map. Then some other federal judges got involved with a map of their own and it has turned into a gigantic supreme court mess who may use the opportunity to gut the voting rights act just for laughs.

Texas Voting Rights Case Heard by Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

It seems the state of Texas has not reformed enough to be trusted to redraw their districts fairly after 46 years. So what's the verdict on the board to this sorry state of affairs? Is section 5 of the voting rights act still valid or do the former Jim Crow states have the right to be as politically racist as they can get away with?

Gerrymandering? Don't even go there. NC-12, Mel Watt's( DEMOCRAT- NC) district is the penultimate example of criminal gerrymandering.....Drawn by democrats..
Click on this link North Carolina and then select "12"...
Don't even start this shit.
This district is the WORST example of racial gerrymandering seen in the last 30 years. So stuff it.

you think THAT is bad?

Illinois's 4th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 4th Congressional District of Illinois includes part of Cook County, and has been represented by Democrat Luis Gutierrez since January 1993.

It was featured by The Economist as one of the most strangely drawn and gerrymandered congressional districts in the country[1] and has been nicknamed "earmuffs" due to its shape.[2] It was created to contain two majority Hispanic parts of Chicago.

 

[percysunshine]

A unanimous decision....hmmmm

 

[Intense]

I'm in District #7. You just have got to love all of the pretty colors and shapes.

Zoom in around NYC.

New York

 

[paulitician]

Dumb Democrat pussies always bitchin about Texas. Like Texans really give a shot about what a bunch of Democrat Dummies from San Fransicko and Assachusetts think.

 

[Intense]

Lies, all lies! It's a vast right-wing conspiracy! It's Bush's fault!

 

[Avatar4321]

How about we just draw the lines usuing already existing community boarders? I mean heaven forbid the politicians actually represent the people of the community they live in.