Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act

ttwtt78640 said:

Affirmative action districts should be illegal EVERYWHERE. While they are seen as "good" to ensure the election of minority candidates they are also likely to produce only demorats. That is the clever little "secret" about keeping these districts alive and well - they seriously increase the number of demorats in some very red states.

Click to expand...

I don't think the VRA is a type of affirmative action. Affirmative action tends to be proactive attempts to alter and increase certain demographics, such as outreach, programs, quotas, etc. The VRA only prevents policies or laws that discriminate, it's more reactive and in my opinion not affirmative action.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep. That is the really sad part, fairness would be seen as unfair. These "affirmative action" districts, that make it a shoe-in for minority (demorat?) candidates, also make it more difficult for demorats to win in the others. If the districts were more "fair" there would be far, far fewer minority candidates that could get elected. It is easy to make demorat districts, simply load them with minorities, it is not quite so easy to do the same for republicants.

Click to expand...

Devolved into childish namecalling have we?

For the VRA to have a future, IMO, it'll have to be made to apply equally to all.

Pilot said:

I don't think the VRA is a type of affirmative action. Affirmative action tends to be proactive attempts to alter and increase certain demographics, such as outreach, programs, quotas, etc. The VRA only prevents policies or laws that discriminate, it's more reactive and in my opinion not affirmative action.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. There are formulas that require minority majority districts within states. Which type of districts and how many were based on a formula 40 years old.

Fisher said:

That was a result of a deal between the dems and the GOP much to the chagrin of suburban liberals who found themselves in red districts. I believe Mother Jones referred to the deal as one of the most unholy political alliances ever in politics, or something along those lines.

Click to expand...

I understand. But this, the minority majority districts really help the Republicans. When a party can receive 53-54% of the vote and yet win 70% of all congressional districts, who can argue with the results.

Pilot said:

I don't think the VRA is a type of affirmative action. Affirmative action tends to be proactive attempts to alter and increase certain demographics, such as outreach, programs, quotas, etc. The VRA only prevents policies or laws that discriminate, it's more reactive and in my opinion not affirmative action.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? It specifically allows judges to ensure that minorities are not "under represented", meaning that, in practice, majority minority districts are virtually required. It also applies only to a few "historically bad" states, that "list" was determined ONCE back in 1965 (are we talking about a "time capsule" based law?), no state has ever been removed from it, yet 3 were later added, which seems to be in clear violation of the 14th amendment. To allow the exact same law in a "good" state that is denied as discriminatory in a "bad" state is insane. What is used to make a challenge under the VRA? Hint it is not constitutional to demand that a law be proven not to be discriminatory unless preclearance is required, that is only in 16 states - in all of the others you must prove that a law is discriminatory. Obviously any change in Texas voting law is assumed to be discriminatory unless proven otherwise, it has to be "precleared" and tus judges rather than our elected officials then get to make the district boundary lines. What goes unsaid is that reace and ethnicity are the primary factors used in that alleged "colorblind" and "outside" decision.

Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act

Perotista said:

I understand. But this, the minority majority districts really help the Republicans. When a party can receive 53-54% of the vote and yet win 70% of all congressional districts, who can argue with the results.

Click to expand...

National performance is irrelevant when it comes to the Congressional makeup. One could just as easily argue how does a party that wins 70% of all CD's not have a majority in the Senate.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep. That is the really sad part, fairness would be seen as unfair. These "affirmative action" districts, that make it a shoe-in for minority (demorat?) candidates, also make it more difficult for demorats to win in the others. If the districts were more "fair" there would be far, far fewer minority candidates that could get elected. It is easy to make demorat districts, simply load them with minorities, it is not quite so easy to do the same for republicants.

Click to expand...

Understand

Deuce said:

Devolved into childish namecalling have we?

Click to expand...

Fair and balanced; demorats and republicants - neither capitalized for proper disrespect.

danarhea said:

It isn't just the South. In South Dakota, Title 5 also applies because of the history of that state not giving Native Americans the vote.

Click to expand...

I believe it applies in Alaska as well.

vendur said:

Not really.

You want an amendment, while I just want them to read the God damn thing they are sworn to protect.

Click to expand...

So... the question is, why is the SCOTUS legislating from the bench when the Constitution right there states that its a matter of congress to decide?

poweRob said:

US Constitution Article I Section IV

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.​

So... the question is, why is the SCOTUS legislating from the bench when the Constitution right there states that its a matter of congress to decide?

Click to expand...

Congress would have to do it for all states, not just specific ones they arbitrarily select. People can't be treated differently just because they reside in different states.

vendur said:

Congress would have to do it for all states, not just specific ones they arbitrarily select. People can't be treated differently just because they reside in different states.

Click to expand...

That's not what that article in the Constitution says.

poweRob said:

That's not what that article in the Constitution says.

the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations​

Click to expand...

You might not believe it, but there are other parts of the constitution, too.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

vendur said:

You might not believe it, but there are other parts of the constitution, too.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd like to see it applied to all states.

Back to topic, I don't believe the SCOTUS is hearing this case with resolving the conflict of article 4 vs article 1. So if they are to abide by the Constitution as you said you want, they need to butt the **** out of this altogether.

poweRob said:

Personally, I'd like to see it applied to all states.

Back to topic, I don't believe the SCOTUS is hearing this case with resolving the conflict of article 4 vs article 1. So if they are to abide by the Constitution as you said you want, they need to butt the **** out of this altogether.

Click to expand...

Did you entirely miss the point here or was this just a really poorly written response?

The SCOTUS job right now is to strike down the laws as currently applied, not "butt out".

vendur said:

Did you entirely miss the point here or was this just a really poorly written response?

The SCOTUS job right now is to strike down the laws as currently applied, not "butt out".

Click to expand...

It is possible that this could fall under the equal protection clause.

I think Republican efforts regarding voter ID laws are sufficient proof the law is still required.

Yes, let's require ID's to "secure the election." And just by pure coincidence, we'll scale back services at the facilities where you'd get these ID's in heavily minority/Democrat districts. Surely they wont need the office open more than 5 days a year, right? Closing down at 4pm?

Meanwhile, we'll completely ignore absentee ballots, which result in the majority of actual voter fraud but happen to lean slightly Republican.

I too think it should be applied to all states equally.....which his to say, it should not be applied to any state at all.

the courts can settle disputes as they arise.. the federal government should not preemptively infringe on rightful state powers.
the Constitution leaves most voting rights in the hands of the states... we should stick to that document on the issue.


doing away with the VRA does not equate to doing away with voting rights..supporting the act being overturned does not equate to supporting discrimination either.

Perotista said:

As long as there is gerrymandering, jury rigging the results of elections way before the first vote is cast, this nation will never have fair elections. I think gerrymandering should also be looked at by the SCOTUS. I will add another item to this discussion, the minority majority district's. These districts actually help the Republicans as the majority of minorities who normally vote for democrats can all be placed into one district leaving the rest more white and more republican than what would be if you split up minorities around the state. Here in Georgia putting most of the blacks into 4 districts guarentees the election of 4 black Democrats, that leaves 9 other districts which only one white democrat was elected along with 8 white republicans. If John Barrow runs for the senate here in Georgia in 2014, look for the republicans to pick up his seat. I would say having 9 out of 13 house seats in republicans hands, I am sure they are more than willing to let the 4 majority black districts stand.

Click to expand...

Basically it sounds like you're saying this. If you split up the minority voters, its gerrymandering in favor of the GOP. If you give them their own district, its gerrymandering in favor of the GOP. So if the minority voters can neither be split up, nor strewn together, then what exactly should we do with them? :roll:

ReformCollege said:

Basically it sounds like you're saying this. If you split up the minority voters, its gerrymandering in favor of the GOP. If you give them their own district, its gerrymandering in favor of the GOP. So if the minority voters can neither be split up, nor strewn together, then what exactly should we do with them? :roll:

Click to expand...

No that was not what I said or perhaps not what I wanted to say. I favor an approach that would keep counties whole as much as possible. End all the snake formed districts. Doing away with majority minority districts, keeping counties whole instead of dividing a country into 3 or 4 districts would be an honest way of drawing the districts. I think with this type of districting those Majority minority districts that usually go democratic by a 80-20 margin would spread those votes around and give us a more accurate representation in the House than what we do now. Did you know last year the Democratic House candidate received approximately 2 million more votes than the GOP candidates, yet the GOP easily retain control.

I don't care about parties, I think they are a bane on our election system that was originally designed to let a candidate run on his own, on his own merit, not a political parties merit, money and influence. In fact the founding fathers and framers called political parties factions. They are indeed that, they divide and conquer. I am white, but I have more in common with the black, Asian and other whites who live in my county than some white guy who lives three counties over and is in the same district as I only because of the color of our skins. As it is now, the northern third formed a majority black district with Clayton and Fulton counties to the north. The middle third went to form a solid republican district and the most of the bottom portion form what became sort of a purple district with the rest of the county thrown into another district to make the numbers match for another district. I think the problems my county has can be best addressed by those who live in my county regardless of skin color. But that is just my opinion

I've often said a computer should be used that mathematically distributes districts as uniformly as possible, taking only population into account, no other demographics whatsoever.

but let's face it. The people in charge of making that change are the very people who benefit from the current system.

Deuce said:

I've often said a computer should be used that mathematically distributes districts as uniformly as possible, taking only population into account, no other demographics whatsoever.

but let's face it. The people in charge of making that change are the very people who benefit from the current system.

Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about the computer, but it would definitely be better to form the districts solely by population.

Pilot said:

I have mixed feelings about the computer, but it would definitely be better to form the districts solely by population.

Click to expand...

Districts should be drawn as near to square as is possible. Draw a square in the middle of the state that holds about 650K people and work your way out, violated the square-rule only as you approach the borders.

I thought about starting on any states eastern border and moving a north-south line west until the minimum number is met.
keep doing this until you hit the west end of the state.
The actual method does not matter, as long as it is consistent.