Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms? It Sure Did

[Doc7505]

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms?​

It Sure Did​

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms? It Sure Did

This is what the party fears the most.

issuesinsights.com

30 Apr 2026 ~~ By I & I Editorial Board

In a decision that shouldn’t have surprised anyone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Democrats can no longer create safe electoral fiefdoms based on race to win elections, calling it “racial gerrymandering.” It’s about time.
The ruling essentially “neuters,” as some put it, Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. PJ Media scribe Matt Margolis called the decision “one of the most consequential redistricting decisions in a generation.” That’s not hyperbole. And it was long overdue.
While still upholding the landmark Voting Rights Act, a 6-3 conservative majority found that a redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map to include a second majority-black district violated the 15th Amendment.
However, “In striking down a Louisiana voting map as a racial gerrymander,” the New York Times noted, “the Court opened the door for other states to redraw maps.”
Other media jumped in, some saying the decision “guts” or “eviscerates” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (it does no such thing; it simply follows the actual language of the bill and of the Constitution’s 15th Amendment).
Can screaming allegations of “racism!” be far behind?
The winner for greatest hyperbole (so far) goes to Esquire, which wrote: “Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr. and Viola Liuzzo did not die just for the conservative majority to commit this heartless act of political vandalism.”
~Snip~
One person, one vote. That’s how Americans and the Constitution see it. Not, “my block of racialized voters, against yours.” Is that a country anyone wants to live in?


Commentary:
This may be one of the most consequential Court decisions in my lifetime. In the best way possible.
The “Great Society Act” was passed in the same manner.
The problem was that the Democrats owned the bureaucracy in DC so they wrote the rules that wound up making the blacks subservient to the Democratic Party. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke forcefully against it accurately predicting exactly what we see today. More poverty, destruction of the black family etc. Fortunately with Trump and the grownups in charge we are reversing it.
Unfortunately, too many graduates from our “liberal arts” institutions would be shocked to find out that their political party fought a war not to abolish slavery, but to KEEP it!
Democrats are shrieking and their masks are completely coming off, revealing them to be the supreme racists they are.
They'll just start the process all over again using bought lower court judges issuing injunctions, then move onto a higher court. it’s all a dog and pony show. The Democrats have the courts, so someone will step up and stop it. Where's Boasberg when they need him?
Meanwhile with their hair on fire Democrats are screaming foul.

 

[Winco]

Regardless of which party:
1). Started it
2). Does it more effectively.
3). Etc......

Who here wishes that Gerrymandering would just fail to exist, and districts are formed by Counties (or combining certain neighboring counties, so dividing equally really big counties.

Hey, I know this is NOT gonna happen, but it should.

 

[Votto]

Regardless of which party:
1). Started it
2). Does it more effectively.
3). Etc......

Who here wishes that Gerrymandering would just fail to exist, and districts are formed by Counties (or combining certain neighboring counties, so dividing equally really big counties.

Hey, I know this is NOT gonna happen, but it should.

It's like telling Russia and the US to give up their nukes.

No, not going to happen.

 

[Winco]

It's like telling Russia and the US to give up their nukes.

No, not going to happen.

So WHY does the (R) party keep whining about it?

 

[airplanemechanic]

So WHY does the (R) party keep whining about it?

Um I'm pretty sure when Texas redistricted to counter CA doing the same thing it was the LEFT whining about it. The left thought they "had us" when they voted to gerrymander the **** out of VA. FL answered and said NOT SO FAST. LEFTIES. And the VA supreme court has already admonished the new law.

Now even MY states gerrymandered districts are being redrawn CORRECTLY this time.

 

[Winco]

Um I'm pretty sure when Texas redistricted to counter CA doing the same thing

I think you need a timeline reference.

Key takeaway​

Texas went first; California explicitly responded to offset it.

Texas (Republican-led redraw)​

Summer 2025

• Texas legislature passes a new congressional map (Aug 2025) aimed at adding GOP seats.

California (Democratic response)​

Summer–Fall 2025

• Political push to counter Texas runs into obstacle: independent commission
• Legislature places a workaround on the ballot (Proposition 50)

 

[Independent thinker]

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms?​

It Sure Did​

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms? It Sure Did

This is what the party fears the most.

issuesinsights.com

30 Apr 2026 ~~ By I & I Editorial Board

In a decision that shouldn’t have surprised anyone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Democrats can no longer create safe electoral fiefdoms based on race to win elections, calling it “racial gerrymandering.” It’s about time.
The ruling essentially “neuters,” as some put it, Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. PJ Media scribe Matt Margolis called the decision “one of the most consequential redistricting decisions in a generation.” That’s not hyperbole. And it was long overdue.
While still upholding the landmark Voting Rights Act, a 6-3 conservative majority found that a redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map to include a second majority-black district violated the 15th Amendment.
However, “In striking down a Louisiana voting map as a racial gerrymander,” the New York Times noted, “the Court opened the door for other states to redraw maps.”
Other media jumped in, some saying the decision “guts” or “eviscerates” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (it does no such thing; it simply follows the actual language of the bill and of the Constitution’s 15th Amendment).
Can screaming allegations of “racism!” be far behind?
The winner for greatest hyperbole (so far) goes to Esquire, which wrote: “Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr. and Viola Liuzzo did not die just for the conservative majority to commit this heartless act of political vandalism.”
~Snip~
One person, one vote. That’s how Americans and the Constitution see it. Not, “my block of racialized voters, against yours.” Is that a country anyone wants to live in?


Commentary:
This may be one of the most consequential Court decisions in my lifetime. In the best way possible.
The “Great Society Act” was passed in the same manner.
The problem was that the Democrats owned the bureaucracy in DC so they wrote the rules that wound up making the blacks subservient to the Democratic Party. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke forcefully against it accurately predicting exactly what we see today. More poverty, destruction of the black family etc. Fortunately with Trump and the grownups in charge we are reversing it.
Unfortunately, too many graduates from our “liberal arts” institutions would be shocked to find out that their political party fought a war not to abolish slavery, but to KEEP it!
Democrats are shrieking and their masks are completely coming off, revealing them to be the supreme racists they are.
They'll just start the process all over again using bought lower court judges issuing injunctions, then move onto a higher court. it’s all a dog and pony show. The Democrats have the courts, so someone will step up and stop it. Where's Boasberg when they need him?
Meanwhile with their hair on fire Democrats are screaming foul.

Once again, democrats believe the answer to discrimination is to discriminate. It's kind of funny, really, to say you are against discrimination and then you turn right around and discriminate. They also belittle blacks and other minorities by claiming these people can't win without discrimination and yet they do win with no discrimination.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Racism is bad.

We need racism to make up for racism.

But when is the racism to make up for racism enough?

How do we know when things are even?

An unborn white male. Let us say someone born TODAY, MAY 1st, 2026. Why should they be discriminated against?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I think you need a timeline reference.

Key takeaway​

Texas went first; California explicitly responded to offset it.

Texas (Republican-led redraw)​

Summer 2025

• Texas legislature passes a new congressional map (Aug 2025) aimed at adding GOP seats.

California (Democratic response)​

Summer–Fall 2025

• Political push to counter Texas runs into obstacle: independent commission
• Legislature places a workaround on the ballot (Proposition 50)

I think YOU need a timeline reference: Phil Burton led the charge in CA in the 1980's to gerrymander. It didn't START in 2025. It even became known as the BURTON GERRYMANDER.



Like I said, Texas did it to counteract CA's HISTORY of doing it. It didn't start in 2025. "Gerrymandering" is even NAMED after a democrat who "gerrymandered" a district in MA back in 1812 or so that looked like a salamander. His name was Gerry, thus "gerrymandering" came to be.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I think YOU need a timeline reference: Phil Burton led the charge in CA in the 1980's to gerrymander. It didn't START in 2025. It even became known as the BURTON GERRYMANDER.



Like I said, Texas did it to counteract CA's HISTORY of doing it. It didn't start in 2025. "Gerrymandering" is even NAMED after a democrat who "gerrymandered" a district in MA back in 1812 or so that looked like a salamander. His name was Gerry, thus "gerrymandering" came to be.

It even goes back to DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR ELBRIDGE GERRY OF TAXACHUSETTS who started it in 1812.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It even goes back to DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR ELBRIDGE GERRY OF TAXACHUSETTS who started it in 1812.

That would be what I'd said in that post.

 

[ColonelAngus]

That would be what I'd said in that post.

My sincerest apologies. I did not see what you posted after the YOUTUBE insert. I read the top of the post, clicked on the link, and then replied.

I am self flagellating and will sacrifice my first born.

Communists are interesting, To see their strategy play out in real time is wild.

See Cali and NYC.

They do not seek good governance. They seek collapse of capitalism.

 

[Lockback]

Democrats love them some racism.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It even goes back to DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR ELBRIDGE GERRY OF TAXACHUSETTS who started it in 1812.

Most people do not realize that he eventually was Vice President of the United States.

 

[berg80]

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms?​

It Sure Did​

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms? It Sure Did

This is what the party fears the most.

issuesinsights.com

30 Apr 2026 ~~ By I & I Editorial Board

In a decision that shouldn’t have surprised anyone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Democrats can no longer create safe electoral fiefdoms based on race to win elections, calling it “racial gerrymandering.” It’s about time.
The ruling essentially “neuters,” as some put it, Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. PJ Media scribe Matt Margolis called the decision “one of the most consequential redistricting decisions in a generation.” That’s not hyperbole. And it was long overdue.
While still upholding the landmark Voting Rights Act, a 6-3 conservative majority found that a redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map to include a second majority-black district violated the 15th Amendment.
However, “In striking down a Louisiana voting map as a racial gerrymander,” the New York Times noted, “the Court opened the door for other states to redraw maps.”
Other media jumped in, some saying the decision “guts” or “eviscerates” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (it does no such thing; it simply follows the actual language of the bill and of the Constitution’s 15th Amendment).
Can screaming allegations of “racism!” be far behind?
The winner for greatest hyperbole (so far) goes to Esquire, which wrote: “Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr. and Viola Liuzzo did not die just for the conservative majority to commit this heartless act of political vandalism.”
~Snip~
One person, one vote. That’s how Americans and the Constitution see it. Not, “my block of racialized voters, against yours.” Is that a country anyone wants to live in?


Commentary:
This may be one of the most consequential Court decisions in my lifetime. In the best way possible.
The “Great Society Act” was passed in the same manner.
The problem was that the Democrats owned the bureaucracy in DC so they wrote the rules that wound up making the blacks subservient to the Democratic Party. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke forcefully against it accurately predicting exactly what we see today. More poverty, destruction of the black family etc. Fortunately with Trump and the grownups in charge we are reversing it.
Unfortunately, too many graduates from our “liberal arts” institutions would be shocked to find out that their political party fought a war not to abolish slavery, but to KEEP it!
Democrats are shrieking and their masks are completely coming off, revealing them to be the supreme racists they are.
They'll just start the process all over again using bought lower court judges issuing injunctions, then move onto a higher court. it’s all a dog and pony show. The Democrats have the courts, so someone will step up and stop it. Where's Boasberg when they need him?
Meanwhile with their hair on fire Democrats are screaming foul.

Mississippi Official Calls to Eliminate State’s Only Majority Black House District After Voting Rights Ruling​

Mississippi Official Calls to Axe Its Only Majority Black House District After Voting Ruling​

A white Mississippi state leader called to eliminate of the state’s only majority-Black congressional district after a landmark voting rights ruling.

www.mississippifreepress.org

The ruling is already resulting in southern states with R controlled legislatures gerrymandering black representation out of existence. Going back to the way things were before the VRA was passed.

Florida Approves House Map That Could Add 4 Republican Seats​

Several voting rights groups have said that they plan to challenge the map in court once Gov. Ron DeSantis signs it into law.

Florida Approves House Map That Could Add 4 Republican Seats

Several voting rights groups have said that they plan to challenge the map in court once Gov. Ron DeSantis signs it into law.

www.nytimes.com

DeSantis slammed for ripping up voter-approved Florida amendment in gerrymandering push​

DeSantis slammed for ripping up voter-approved Florida amendment in gerrymandering push

With his new congressional maps heavily favoring Republicans, Gov. Ron DeSantis is unilaterally declaring unconstitutional the 2010 "Fair Districts" amendment that state voters overwhelmingly approved, say statewide and national Democrats, along with the Miami attorney who got the amendment on...

www.wlrn.org

The FL legislature violated a provision in the state's constitution.

 

[Winco]

Democrats love them some racism.

Sure, 100 years ago.

Todays racists are clearly conservatives.
I know, I know, Butttt... (D) started the KKK.
Yup, they did.
Those southern confederate rednecks have ALWAYS been Conservatives.

Key details regarding Southern Democrats:

• Ideology: They were considered "racially conservative," focusing on maintaining total white control in the South. They were instrumental in passing and maintaining Jim Crow laws.
• The "Solid South": Following Reconstruction, white Southerners voted Democrat regardless of ideology, creating a coalition known as "Yellow Dog Democrats" that served as the default, conservative political structure, according to the Texas Politics Project.
  • Split with National Party: Southern Democrats frequently clashed with the national Democratic party, famously forming the Dixiecrat party in 1948 to oppose civil rights reforms.
  • Transition to Republican: Throughout the 1960s–1980s, conservative white Southerners left the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, driven by opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.

I understand that you deny the switch.
But facts are facts.

 

[Lockback]

Excellent!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, um, Democrats....
That little stunt you pulled in VA this week doesn't look so good now, eh?

 

[candycorn]

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms?​

It Sure Did​

Did Supreme Court Just Kill Dems’ Efforts To Racially Gerrymander Midterms? It Sure Did

This is what the party fears the most.

issuesinsights.com

30 Apr 2026 ~~ By I & I Editorial Board

In a decision that shouldn’t have surprised anyone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Democrats can no longer create safe electoral fiefdoms based on race to win elections, calling it “racial gerrymandering.” It’s about time.
The ruling essentially “neuters,” as some put it, Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. PJ Media scribe Matt Margolis called the decision “one of the most consequential redistricting decisions in a generation.” That’s not hyperbole. And it was long overdue.
While still upholding the landmark Voting Rights Act, a 6-3 conservative majority found that a redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map to include a second majority-black district violated the 15th Amendment.
However, “In striking down a Louisiana voting map as a racial gerrymander,” the New York Times noted, “the Court opened the door for other states to redraw maps.”
Other media jumped in, some saying the decision “guts” or “eviscerates” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (it does no such thing; it simply follows the actual language of the bill and of the Constitution’s 15th Amendment).
Can screaming allegations of “racism!” be far behind?
The winner for greatest hyperbole (so far) goes to Esquire, which wrote: “Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr. and Viola Liuzzo did not die just for the conservative majority to commit this heartless act of political vandalism.”
~Snip~
One person, one vote. That’s how Americans and the Constitution see it. Not, “my block of racialized voters, against yours.” Is that a country anyone wants to live in?


Commentary:
This may be one of the most consequential Court decisions in my lifetime. In the best way possible.
The “Great Society Act” was passed in the same manner.
The problem was that the Democrats owned the bureaucracy in DC so they wrote the rules that wound up making the blacks subservient to the Democratic Party. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke forcefully against it accurately predicting exactly what we see today. More poverty, destruction of the black family etc. Fortunately with Trump and the grownups in charge we are reversing it.
Unfortunately, too many graduates from our “liberal arts” institutions would be shocked to find out that their political party fought a war not to abolish slavery, but to KEEP it!
Democrats are shrieking and their masks are completely coming off, revealing them to be the supreme racists they are.
They'll just start the process all over again using bought lower court judges issuing injunctions, then move onto a higher court. it’s all a dog and pony show. The Democrats have the courts, so someone will step up and stop it. Where's Boasberg when they need him?
Meanwhile with their hair on fire Democrats are screaming foul.

So does this mean you’ll stop claiming rampant voter fruad when you lose?

I doubt it.

 

[Doc7505]

It even goes back to DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR ELBRIDGE GERRY OF TAXACHUSETTS who started it in 1812.

Speaking of Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Virginia have gerrymandered Republicans from their legislature and representation in Congress and their state and municipal legislatures, prior to this political kerfuffle.