Cracking and Packing, and Racially Polarized Voting: How the USSC May end Racial Gerrymandering for Good

[Seymour Flops]

From the League of Women Voters:

Racial Vote Dilution and Gerrymandering in Louisiana v. Callais | League of Women Voters

On March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. The case has massive implications for voting rights and democracy, as it involves two related but distinct concepts: racial vote dilution and racial gerrymandering. The easiest way to separate these two ideas is...

www.lwv.org

Throughout history, many states and localities have used redistricting, or the drawing of congressional maps based on local populations, to weaken the power of voters of color. They’ve done so by, for example, “cracking” Black populations between multiple districts to reduce their voting power or “packing” them into a smaller number of districts to reduce their representation. To avoid diluting votes and violating Section 2 (of the Voting Rights Act), states and localities must draw “Section 2 districts,” where voters of color can elect their chosen candidates under certain circumstances.

In a case called Thornburg v. Gingles, (1986) and in subsequent cases, the Supreme Court set forth a test to determine when drawing a Section 2 district is required. First, three preconditions must be met:

1. Minority voters must comprise a large enough percentage of eligible voters (of the voting age population), and they must live close enough together to form a majority in a compact district;
2. The minority voters in the challenged area must vote in a politically cohesive manner, that is, they vote together as a bloc for candidates; and
3. White voters in the majority must vote in a politically cohesive manner, ensuring the candidate preferred by the minority voters consistently loses elections.

Together, the last two preconditions are referred to as “racially polarized voting.”

So, what's new? What's different?

Races no longer vote as a solid block, if they ever really did. There are several black Republicans in Congress from largely white, largely conservative Republican districts. Latinos in Texas turned out in droves to vote for White-as-Snow, Irish decent Robert Frances O'Rourke and not because he adopted the nickname "Beto."

Trump got a huge slice of the Male Latino vote. Will Democrats now try to figure out a way to Gerrymander a separation between women and men? If so, how will they know what Women are?

The Court has a chance to address this. This is the current electoral map of Louisiana, Gerrymandered at court order to produce three "black districts," instead two as before:

This oddly shaped district 6 prompted 12 “non-African American” voters to sue in a different court altogether, accusing Louisiana of discriminating against them by racially gerrymandering the new map.
A racial gerrymandering claim comes under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which states, “[n]o State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection Clause prevents governments from discriminating against different classes of people. Yet, unlike Section 2, the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof of intent to racially discriminate.

What’s at Stake in Louisiana vs. Callais?​

Herein lies the tension for voting rights advocates: Louisiana must consider race to draw Section 2-compliant district lines and give voters of color equal access to the political process. But does that mean race is always the guiding factor when drawing a Section 2 district? If the Supreme Court answers yes to this question, it would have to apply strict scrutiny to all Section 2 districts, and remedial maps would become much harder to make.

I'll stop pasting, and encourage you to read the entire article. The tone of the article is that the authors want racial Gerrymandering to survive, but it is informative even if I disagree with the tone.

Comments from any and all viewpoints are most welcome.

 

[dblack]

Thanks for a good OP.

As you suggest, schemes like this only reinforce identity politics. I think the most promising proposal to end gerrymandering is multi-rep districts drawn around existing political boundaries (states, for the most part). The idea is that, rather than breaking a state up into "creatively drawn" districts, simply have all the representatives run in the same race, and take the top vote-getters as the winners. For example, a state stipulated to have 5 reps, will vote in one election with all candidates for the state on the ballot. The top 5 go to Congress.

But I don't see any meaningful reform happening as long as Ds and Rs are in power. They only think critically about the process when they're not in power. And when they do gain power, they suddenly like things just the way they are.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thanks for a good OP.

As you suggest, schemes like this only reinforce identity politics. I think the most promising proposal to end gerrymandering is multi-rep districts drawn around existing political boundaries (states, for the most part). The idea is that, rather than breaking a state up into "creatively drawn" districts, simply have all the representatives run in the same race, and take the top vote-getters as the winners. For example, a state stipulated to have 5 reps, will vote in one election with all candidates for the state on the ballot. The top 5 go to Congress.

That would be one way to do it differently. Or you could do the same idea nationwide, with hundreds of candidates runnning and the top vote 435 (?) going to congress. Actually, you'd have thousands of candidates. Hundreds of candidates would run in states like Texas and California under your plan.

In the abstract, any system could be imagined that would not have the flaws of our current system. But when that alternative is put into practice, or even through some thought experiments, the flaws in that system would become apparent and may or may not be as bad or not as bad as the flaws in our current way.

But I don't see any meaningful reform happening as long as Ds and Rs are in power. They only think critically about the process when they're not in power. And when they do gain power, they suddenly like things just the way they are.

Sure, but that thinking is similar to thinking about different ideas for representation, in that it imagines a pristine and untried plan that would have to be better since the current one is so bad. But once you start plugging real names into the proposed third, fourth, etc. parties, it isn't so appealing. "I cannot wait to see who my party runs for president this year! What? It's the guy in the yellow hat? Oh, the psychologist with no experience in elected office? A former congressman who couldn't get along with anyone?"

What happened in 2016, and especially 2024 is that one side, the GOP won and decisively. Then by a miracle, the leader of that side did NOT spend the next four years letting the other party run over him, in order to not be criticized in the media by "sources." DEMs are much better at doing what they promised that Reps.

Trump is actually doing what so many Republicans have promoted and promised. That is a fulfillment of promise of the two party system, not a demonstration that it is broken.

 

[dblack]

That would be one way to do it differently. Or you could do the same idea nationwide, with hundreds of candidates runnning and the top vote 435 (?) going to congress. Actually, you'd have thousands of candidates. Hundreds of candidates would run in states like Texas and California under your plan.

In the abstract, any system could be imagined that would not have the flaws of our current system. But when that alternative is put into practice, or even through some thought experiments, the flaws in that system would become apparent and may or may not be as bad or not as bad as the flaws in our current way.

Sure, but that thinking is similar to thinking about different ideas for representation, in that it imagines a pristine and untried plan that would have to be better since the current one is so bad. But once you start plugging real names into the proposed third, fourth, etc. parties, it isn't so appealing. "I cannot wait to see who my party runs for president this year! What? It's the guy in the yellow hat? Oh, the psychologist with no experience in elected office? A former congressman who couldn't get along with anyone?"

What happened in 2016, and especially 2024 is that one side, the GOP won and decisively. Then by a miracle, the leader of that side did NOT spend the next four years letting the other party run over him, in order to not be criticized in the media by "sources." DEMs are much better at doing what they promised that Reps.

Trump is actually doing what so many Republicans have promoted and promised. That is a fulfillment of promise of the two party system, not a demonstration that it is broken.

The usual horseshit. SeeyaBye