SCOTUS Rules Texas Maps Aren't Gerrymandered

[luckyshot]

In a 5-4 party line decision, the SCOTUS once again decided to let maps that were accused on being gerrymandered stand unchanged.

The court found that just one of Texas' 90 electoral districts was a racial gerrymander, even though district courts in Texas unanimously found otherwise. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Texas' legislative and congressional maps are not a racial gerrymander and that all districts are OK, except for one, which it determined is a racial gerrymander — House District 90.

Sonia Sotomayor wrote a 46 page dissent joined by the courts other liberal justices:"The Court today goes out of its way to permit the State of Texas to use maps that he three-judge District Court unanimously found were adopted for the purpose of preserving the racial discrimination that tainted its previous maps."
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/6231...tical-map-is-largely-not-a-racial-gerrymander

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Racial Gerrymandering will #MAGA!!!! LIBZ BTFO!!!!

 

[Not A Theist]

As someone who doesn't know much at all about political lines drawn in Texas, or Texas politics at all, when the Supreme court rules that the map is largely not a case of racial gerrymandering, what is your reasoning for stating, definitively, in the title, that the court is allowing precisely what they say is not happening to continue? I'm not saying this is an unlikely scenario, especially with the current supreme court, I'd just like to know the definitive reasoning that has you stating that the Supreme court's statement is false and that your thread title reflects the reality of the situation.

What's particularly odd is that the decisions recognizes racial gerrymandering, insofar as it recognizes one instance of it and deals with it, so it's not the case that they are denying that it happens. Instead they are denying that it is happening, in this case barring the one instance, even though they recognize it can happen.

 

[My Spot]

The irony of Sotomayor.

 

[Johnny Mac]

Everything is racist if the left is losing. The term has almost lost all meaning.

 

[luckyshot]

As someone who doesn't know much at all about political lines drawn in Texas, or Texas politics at all, when the Supreme court rules that the map is largely not a case of racial gerrymandering, what is your reasoning for stating, definitively, in the title, that the court is allowing precisely what they say is not happening to continue? I'm not saying this is an unlikely scenario, especially with the current supreme court, I'd just like to know the definitive reasoning that has you stating that the Supreme court's statement is false and that your thread title reflects the reality of the situation.

What's particularly odd is that the decisions recognizes racial gerrymandering, insofar as it recognizes one instance of it and deals with it, so it's not the case that they are denying that it happens. Instead they are denying that it is happening, in this case barring the one instance, even though they recognize it can happen.

Texas courts found that the maps were designed to racially gerrymander.

The timeline is this: in 2011 Texas court found maps were unconstitutional. Congress was ordered to draw up provisional maps, did so in 2012.Texas courts found those maps were unconstitutional for the same reasons.

But, you are right-- I don't have the technical expertise to unpack the nuances.

 

[Not A Theist]

Texas courts found that the maps were designed to racially gerrymander.

The timeline is this: in 2011 Texas court found maps were unconstitutional. Congress was ordered to draw up provisional maps, did so in 2012.Texas courts found those maps were unconstitutional for the same reasons.

But, you are right-- I don't have the technical expertise to unpack the nuances.

Fair enough. I think it's perfectly reasonable to postulate that "Texas voting districts were designed in such a way to manipulate elections along racial lines." The problem arises when that statement is in direct opposition to one which the Supreme Court made. Given the finding of the previous Texas court, it basically becomes "Is the Supreme Court less reliable/more biased than that Texas court?" - to which the answer may be yes, especially given its current makeup.

My qualm about the thread is that it is worded in such a way so as to state conclusion which your material doesn't support. As someone who I generally find to be a poster presenting things I enjoy reading, this may not be an ideal practice to maintain credibility in your posting.

I'd be curious to see if anyone has in depth knowledge on the subject. @Jack V Savage usually very much impresses me with his political knowledge. Do you have any thoughts on the gerrymandering situation in Texas, if it's something you know about? Is it legitimate, and is the Supreme Court essentially performing activism from the bench in this ruling?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd be curious to see if anyone has in depth knowledge on the subject. @Jack V Savage usually very much impresses me with his political knowledge. Do you have any thoughts on the gerrymandering situation in Texas, if it's something you know about? Is it legitimate, and is the Supreme Court essentially performing activism from the bench in this ruling?

I know nothing about it. @Quipling, @Denter or @BKMMAFAN might be better people to ask on this one.

 

[Not A Theist]

I know nothing about it. @Quipling, @Denter or @BKMMAFAN might be better people to ask on this one.

Thanks. What I think I really need to do is track down Sotomayor's dissent and read her perspective on it... But, I'll get to that.

Edit: Much more informative article on the subject for those interesting, by the way.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...eme-court-texas-gerrymandering-abbott-v-perez

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I was always curious:
is the proposed purpose of gerrymandering just to instill districts along party lines?

or is it also to help pass any pork barrel legistation that is added onto bills, making it easier to add superfluous bullshit when the party is lined up in the district which will be most directly effected?

 

[xcvbn]

Texas courts found that the maps were designed to racially gerrymander.

The timeline is this: in 2011 Texas court found maps were unconstitutional. Congress was ordered to draw up provisional maps, did so in 2012.Texas courts found those maps were unconstitutional for the same reasons.

But, you are right-- I don't have the technical expertise to unpack the nuances.

The SCOTUS decision is now the law of the land and makes the Texas decision null and void. You don't have to agree, but you have to respect it.

 

[Higus]

I was always curious:
is the proposed purpose of gerrymandering just to instill districts along party lines?

or is it also to help pass any pork barrel legistation that is added onto bills, making it easier to add superfluous bullshit when the party is lined up in the district which will be most directly effected?

Usually the former.

 

[Higus]

As someone who doesn't know much at all about political lines drawn in Texas, or Texas politics at all, when the Supreme court rules that the map is largely not a case of racial gerrymandering, what is your reasoning for stating, definitively, in the title, that the court is allowing precisely what they say is not happening to continue? I'm not saying this is an unlikely scenario, especially with the current supreme court, I'd just like to know the definitive reasoning that has you stating that the Supreme court's statement is false and that your thread title reflects the reality of the situation.

What's particularly odd is that the decisions recognizes racial gerrymandering, insofar as it recognizes one instance of it and deals with it, so it's not the case that they are denying that it happens. Instead they are denying that it is happening, in this case barring the one instance, even though they recognize it can happen.

I'll let the WR lawyers dissect it more in depth, but basically it seems like the argument the conservative justices made was not that racial redistricting occurred, but rather if the states has the right to do it anyway.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/25/us-supreme-ruling-court-texas-redistricting-case/

EDIT: thread title is misleading, but then again, the reasoning behind the decision is not really straight forward.

 

[HomerThompson]

Our country is going down the shitter.

 

[My Spot]

Our country is going down the shitter.

 

[HomerThompson]

Not quite, but we're trying hard to make it happen.

 

[My Spot]

Not quite, but we're trying hard to make it happen.

Spoiler

 

[franklinstower]

"So called" supreme court judges......

 

[Pessimystic]

Remember when the SCOTUS said the ACA was constitional? A lot of people were upset about that one, too.
Oh well, you win some, you lose some.

 

[Higus]

MRW the 1 district out of 11 they determined was gerrymandered is held by a democrat
<puh-lease75>