Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

And you conveniently forgot to mention that it was the cons on SCOTUS that enabled the practice in th first place:

 To wit:


Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that federal courts have no authority to review claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that while extreme partisan gerrymandering is "incompatible with democratic principles," it presents a "nonjusticiable political question" that federal judges cannot resolve. This ruling greenlit the drawing of electoral districts to intentionally favor one political party.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024): The Court made it significantly harder to challenge racially gerrymandered maps by establishing a "presumption" that mapmakers act in good faith. It effectively allowed map drawers to use race as a proxy for partisan advantage, as long as they can claim the redistricting was done for political, not racial, reasons.

Louisiana v. Callais (2026): The Court further gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By imposing stricter standards that make it incredibly difficult to prove intentional racial discrimination, the decision essentially shielded political maps from court-ordered revisions even when minority representation is diminished.

Brennan center for justice.

BS, as if gerrymandering were new!   Read a wiki article or something.   The Court has confirmed that centuries old practice of partisan gerrymandering is OK, and racial gerrymandering is not.   

You, on the other hand have tried  to draw a nonsensical distinction between the partisan gerrymandering done by California, which you obviously supported and the partisan gerrymandering done by red states.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Rod, what they are doing is the continued removal of affirmative action from the US in my opinion.

This is true.   Do you think this is good or bad?

Originally Posted by James Brown

This is true.   Do you think this is good or bad?

I should’ve said that “I believe“ this is true. The broader question is a great debate topic. Actually, it is a couple of debate topics. We could debate whether affirmative action is constitutional. We could also debate in the abstract, whether affirmative action is a good or bad idea in 2026.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Let me add that I would very much like the House of Representatives to truly represent the population of each state in the broadest sense of the term, which I’m certain is what the founders intended. We DO NOT NEED 2 Senates.

We are a million miles from that standard.

I recall that the Constitution requires equal population districts.  After that, the details are left up to the states.  Most states at least used to require districts to be compact and contiguous.  I admired those states that appointed bipartisan commissions to draw geographically rational districts.  It's not an easy job.   One important thing that might be overlooked recently is that the Supremes have said it is not a violation of federal law to gerrymander for partisan gain.  Some states still have laws on the books at the state level banning partisan gerrymandering.   As we have seen, those laws are readily jettisoned by both sides to gain advantage in these polarized times.

It is tough to draw districts that truly represent the population of each state.  CA breaks down as about  45%D,  25%R, and 30% I or unaffiliated.  There is probably no way to draw a map that gives anything but overwhelming partisan advantage to Ds in CA since the R's and I's are not in isolated geographic enclaves, but rather spread all over the map.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

My guess is that you probably won't hear from him for awhile. He's probably moving to Texas so….

Changed my mind

Originally Posted by James Lacey

There are many problems with your "facts," but the most glaring one is that both parties gerrymander, even by race, when they get the chance, so acting like this is only a Democrat issue ignores reality.

I have never commented on the Voting Rights Act in this thread, but your characterization that it was a "Socialist Democrat Party bastardization of the laws and the US Constitution, whose only purpose was to allow the Socialist Democrat Party to draw district maps based only on race" is clearly little more than a one-sided, emotionally charged, political diatribe. The real argument here is where the fine line should be between protecting minority representation and using race too heavily in politics. And you acting like only Democrats have ever pushed the limits on where that line is, for political gain, is a ridiculously ill-informed view of history.

Great points.   I’ve posted several times about the VRA.   I think Russ nailed it.   The conservatives on the Court believe the VRA is limited by the 14th amendment to ban gerrymandering to give to racial minorities an affirmative advantage or a disadvantage.   The liberals on the Court disagree vehemently because they believe the principles of fairness and justice underlying the 14th Amendment and the VRA mandate minority majority districts or other steps beyond free and open elections to foster equal representation.   It is my sincere hope that everyone except Richard sees that these are both defensible positions and that neither is Constitutionally “wrong”.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Dude, we were talking about Rich, not you!

Of course!   I had posted a reply mocking Rich, but I thought better of it.   Time is too precious to waste on lost causes.   Sorry to have been confusing!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Dude, we were talking about Rich, not ….

Damn iPhone double post.    😠

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

BTW, Jim, I thought you were actually working on a book, "The True Heroes of American Constitutional Originalism: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas". Soon to be on the New York Times bestsellers list...

😃👍🏼

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

  The gerrymandering is a state by state issue as I understand it so there are x states gerrymandering one of the ways above and y states doing it the other way and these actions, however opposite in intent and execution they are, are both 'defensible positions and neither are Constitutionally wrong'.

Really?

That just seems like a messed up situation..... It's like 25 states drive cars on the right side of the road and 25 on the left because each state has the power to legislate for  its own citizenry for the 'local' good based on that one state's needs without regard to what the effect nationally might be.

Am I reading this wrong or .....?

Dave

Hi David, thanks for the thoughtful post. By and large I think you are reading this right. The US Constitution grants a great deal of autonomy to the states. We are indeed the United States of America.  According to the constitution every item of governance that is not specifically reserved to the federal government is controlled by the states individually. That is probably the heart and soul of our constitution. Obviously, the scope of federal government has grown massively in the last 125 years. In my opinion, this coincides with the “shrinking“ of the world with instantaneous communication and widespread cheap travel.

So, to pick one example, it is not surprising that blue states gerrymander to favor Democrats and red states gerrymander to favor Republicans. Don’t worry, over time these things change and flip. When I moved to Colorado 40 years ago, it was a solid red state. Then you will remember that it was an important swing state in the Clinton/Bush Sr. era.   Now it is solidly blue.

I think gerrymandering for partisan gain sucks by the way, but it is up to the people to fix it if they want to. It is not the Supreme Court’s job, unless a proposed gerrymander runs afoul of a hard and fast federal rule such as the 14th amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination. Many states have tried to fix political gerrymandering by passing laws appointing a bipartisan commissions to draw the lines. But, as we have recently seen, the same voters are willing to jettison their high minded ideals in these partisan times. So it goes. Democracy can be messy

We don’t have to worry about driving on the left side in Colorado and the right side in Kansas, because the constitution reserves matters of true interstate importance to the federal government. So, our defense, our highways, our park system, our interstate shipping, banking, money, and any number of genuinely “federal” issues are happily controlled at the federal level.  Liberals favor more federal control of everything ant the federal level i.e. abortion, where conservatives are more comfortable with state control of many issues.

It is a very successful system, and I like it a lot. I certainly understand why the youth of today might be frustrated by a lack of strong central planning, but the youth by definition are very shortsighted and needy. I think history teaches that the American system of federalism is a wonderful system that promotes liberty, maybe at the expense of efficiency, and I hope it lasts for a very long time.  Jim