SCOTUS Rules Texas Maps Aren't Gerrymandered

[44nutman]

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?

I used to live in this one, and freaking hated it.
I lived at the very bottom of this crazy ass gerrymandered district and wacky ass Corrine Brown was in my district. This district is packed full of black people and Corrine was never going to lose her spot. Corrine is a dumbass and she represented my district at the time. One of the reason I could not wait to move. They have since done away this district.
This is a classic example of a gerrymandered district.
If Jesus ran as a Republican in this district he would have no shot, unless he was black.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I used to live in this one, and freaking hated it.
I lived at the very bottom of this crazy ass gerrymandered district and wacky ass Corrine Brown was in my district. This district is packed full of black people and Corrine was never going to lose her spot. Corrine is a dumbass and she represented my district at the time. One of the reason I could not wait to move. They have since done away this district.
This is a classic example of a gerrymandered district.
If Jesus ran as a Republican in this district he would have no shot, unless he was black.

playa I live in a weird Republican heavy part of SoCal, mainly due to heavy military and veteran presence

our district House rep is from Yucca Valley too, out here, crazy.

Which makes it more odd that preceeding him was Nancy Pelosi before getting redistricted to the SFC district, obviously she wasn't here, but the districts were completely different prior....
edit: a better explanation
Before the 2011 redistricting, the 8th district was a Democratic stronghold. It gave John Kerry his best performance in California in 2004, backing the Democrat with 84.2% of the vote. Barack Obama continued on this trend in 2008 when he received 85.22% of the vote in the district while John McCain received 12.38%.
sounds like I got gerrymandered and didn't even know it haha

The new 8th district lies in a politically conservative region of the state with a "Strongly Republican" Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+10. The Cook Political Report ranks it the 87th most Republican-leaning congressional district in the United States.[5]

In the 2012 election, the 8th district was one of only two in California where two Republicans faced each other in a runoff election

 

[Seano]

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? .

Because Texas is a red state.

 

[nac386]

I don't understand how gerrymandering is even a thing. It's so obviously unethical and unfair. I live in Maryland, and our gerrymandered map is almost comical.

 

[Quipling]

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/

Couple different parts to the opinion. Background: 2011 maps were never incorporated due to a preemptive challenge. They were revised in 2013 by the Texas legislature (incorporating some recommendations from the court) before the case concluded. Some parts were not significantly changed (2011 districts), and some were (2013 districts). The 2013 maps were used for a couple elections. The lower court later struck down parts of the 2013 map. They had three reasons for doing so, which Scotus discussed separately.

• the lower court found flaws in certain 2011 districts and, because those defects were not cured by the 2013 legislature, invalidated them.

Scotus overturned this part of the holding on the basis that the lower court was reviewing the 2013 legislature, not the previous process. (so they couldn't grandfather any alleged discriminatory intent). The standard is whether the 2013 legislature set out to racially gerrymander, and the lower court didn't apply it properly (specifically, they should have evaluated whether plaintiffs had shown that they had instead of inferring it from inaction)

• The lower court alternatively found that three 2011 districts had the effect of depriving Latino voters of representation.

Scotus reversed this because it found a good basis for the way those districts were drawn. Page 35-36 is the best example of this reasoning.

• A fourth 2013 district was a racial gerrymander.

Scotus agrees- they noted that the legislature made several changes exclusively for race-based reasons. Texas argued that they did so to ensure that Latino voters had some representation as discussed above.
(Under the VRA, it is sometimes ok to consider race to ensure minorities get some level of representation- that is what "Latino-performing" or "latino opportunity" refers to). Scotus rejected that argument because Texas did not show that the race-motivated alteration was necessary to create a latino-opportunity district.

 

[Higus]

• The lower court alternatively found that three 2011 districts had the effect of depriving Latino voters of representation.

Scotus reversed this because it found a good basis for the way those districts were drawn. Page 35-36 is the best example of this reasoning.

Thanks for the breakdown. In your opinion, was the reasoning behind the redistricting good or "good enough" to make an argument?

 

[JamesRussler]

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 problem is Courts actually don't have the "technical expertise" they need to make these sorts of findings. For that matter, so-called "experts" on race usually have the most warped ideas on race. The mere fact that a Court "found" that racism existed isn't persuasive at all. It's just another attempt by the left to shut off debate by endowing their opinions with the force of law.

The truth is, people voluntarily self-segregate all the time. Every time you redraw a district boundary, it will have the effect of either consolidating or splitting up the vote of a given demographic. We could quibble about it ad nauseam, but we shouldn't. If you want more political power, you're going to need to persuade more people that you're correct.

 

[Quipling]

Thanks for the breakdown. In your opinion, was the reasoning behind the redistricting good or "good enough" to make an argument?

I havent reviewed the 2013 legislature's reasoning. The last section of this opinion makes it sound like it was more of a "good-enough" situation - that's why the state lost when the burden shifted to them. My suspicion is that there was some deliberate racial gerrymandering in the past, and that the changes were effectively locked-in, maybe out of a desire to preserve the status quo.

It's kind of a microcosm of historical issues with race. Nobody reasonable denies that there are economic/political advantages that were at one point distributed on race, or that this is somewhat reflected in who currently holds them. But people don't really like the idea of unravelling all those distributions because of those bad roots.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

So the supreme Court ruled that rigging and cheating elections is ok? That's pretty bad.

 

[Shoemaker]

playa I live in a weird Republican heavy part of SoCal, mainly due to heavy military and veteran presence

San Diego county? North SD County and Orange County are pretty conservative from my experience. Wealthy + military.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

San Diego county? North SD County and Orange County are pretty conservative from my experience. Wealthy + military.

I am from there, and yes it is largely conservative (which given it's high latino population is kinda odd)...east county too w/ all the for lack of a better term more 'rednecky' people

but I live in the desert of San Bernardino county now, district 8

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I used to live in this one, and freaking hated it.
I lived at the very bottom of this crazy ass gerrymandered district and wacky ass Corrine Brown was in my district. This district is packed full of black people and Corrine was never going to lose her spot. Corrine is a dumbass and she represented my district at the time. One of the reason I could not wait to move. They have since done away this district.
This is a classic example of a gerrymandered district.
If Jesus ran as a Republican in this district he would have no shot, unless he was black.

 

[Shoemaker]

I am from there, and yes it is largely conservative (which given it's high latino population is kinda odd)...east county too w/ all the for lack of a better term more 'rednecky' people

but I live in the desert of San Bernardino county now, district 8

Funny, I grew up in the desert of San Bernardino county, but live in south OC now. That's not a bad comparison for how a lot of those cities look.

I imagine south San Diego county turns pretty blue. Anything near Camp Pendleton is going to be at least a more red shade of purple.

 

[panamaican]

I havent reviewed the 2013 legislature's reasoning. The last section of this opinion makes it sound like it was more of a "good-enough" situation - that's why the state lost when the burden shifted to them. My suspicion is that there was some deliberate racial gerrymandering in the past, and that the changes were effectively locked-in, maybe out of a desire to preserve the status quo.

It's kind of a microcosm of historical issues with race. Nobody reasonable denies that there are economic/political advantages that were at one point distributed on race, or that this is somewhat reflected in who currently holds them. But people don't really like the idea of unravelling all those distributions because of those bad roots.

True.

Couple different parts to the opinion. Background: 2011 maps were never incorporated due to a preemptive challenge. They were revised in 2013 by the Texas legislature (incorporating some recommendations from the court) before the case concluded. Some parts were not significantly changed (2011 districts), and some were (2013 districts). The 2013 maps were used for a couple elections. The lower court later struck down parts of the 2013 map. They had three reasons for doing so, which Scotus discussed separately.

• the lower court found flaws in certain 2011 districts and, because those defects were not cured by the 2013 legislature, invalidated them.

Scotus overturned this part of the holding on the basis that the lower court was reviewing the 2013 legislature, not the previous process. (so they couldn't grandfather any alleged discriminatory intent). The standard is whether the 2013 legislature set out to racially gerrymander, and the lower court didn't apply it properly (specifically, they should have evaluated whether plaintiffs had shown that they had instead of inferring it from inaction)

• The lower court alternatively found that three 2011 districts had the effect of depriving Latino voters of representation.

Scotus reversed this because it found a good basis for the way those districts were drawn. Page 35-36 is the best example of this reasoning.

• A fourth 2013 district was a racial gerrymander.

Scotus agrees- they noted that the legislature made several changes exclusively for race-based reasons. Texas argued that they did so to ensure that Latino voters had some representation as discussed above.
(Under the VRA, it is sometimes ok to consider race to ensure minorities get some level of representation- that is what "Latino-performing" or "latino opportunity" refers to). Scotus rejected that argument because Texas did not show that the race-motivated alteration was necessary to create a latino-opportunity district.

Basically my understanding of it as well. There's that whole section on whether or not they even should have heard the case too. But I get what SCOTUS is saying there, if they're reviewing the post-2012 maps, the burden is on them to show that those maps were adopted with racial intent, not just to carry the intent over from the 2011 maps. Which seems fair and makes me wonder if/how that was addressed in the arguments.

Also, is it just me or does it seem like there's more narrowly tailored rulings on big issues these days?

 

[My Spot]

So the supreme Court ruled that rigging and cheating elections is ok? That's pretty bad.

 

[Denter]

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

Its generally naked power grabbing all the way down. Not that I object, its just funny that they all have to put some patina of democracy on it.

 

[Higus]

@Quipling @panamaican
Am I interpreting this right? It seems like the decision was that it's ok to gerrymander districts implicitly on political leanings of the people that live there (because of plausible deniability), but not explicitly based on race?

 

[panamaican]

@Quipling @panamaican
Am I interpreting this right? It seems like the decision was that it's ok to gerrymander districts implicitly on political leanings of the people that live there (because of plausible deniability), but not explicitly based on race?

Not exactly. They didn't touch on how much political gerrymandering is/isn't acceptable, only that when you allege race based gerrymandering, you have to establish that it was the intent of the people who selected the current maps. It's not a ruling that's going to apply to alot of different examples because this was somewhat unique in how the maps ended up being selected.

 

[Factory]

Our country is going down the shitter.

hey lets change citizenship then! I give you my German nationality in exchange of US at any time.
I offer you free borders and a lefty leader which you can't vote out. The only disadvantage for you would be, that you have to pay very high taxes. 1/2 of your income goes to Merkel. But don't worry, the sjw feeling to pay and work your whole life mainly for other people is truly amazing.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Not 1 district map of Texas. I'm disappointed.