Minority votes intentionally diluted by GOP-led Texas House redistricting, federal court says - Polidicks

[quote]Texas statehouse districts drawn by the Republican-led legislature in 2011 intentionally diluted the votes of minorities, violating the U.S. Constitution and parts of the Voting Rights Act, a federal court ruled Thursday. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in San Antonio found that the maps gave Republicans an advantage in elections and weakened the voting strength of minority voters. House Districts in Dallas and Tarrant counties were among those in which the judges ruled minority voters had seen their clout weakened. The ruling is yet another blow to the state in its six-year legal battle over the redrawing of the maps. Last month, the same court found that the state's congressional maps were drawn with intent to discriminate against minority voters and invalidated three congressional districts. And last week, a federal judge ruled that the state's voter ID law was written with intent to discriminate. "The evidence of the mapdrawing process supports the conclusion that mapdrawers were motivated in part by an intent to dilute minority voting strength," U.S. District Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote in the 171-page ruling. "Discussions among mapdrawers demonstrated a hostility to creating any new minority districts as those were seen to be a loss of Republican seats, despite the massive minority population growth statewide." In dissent, Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said the panel's majority opinion was based on a "misunderstanding" of the law and said the court had no jurisdiction to rule on the 2011 House map. He said the majority opinion's findings were "so extreme as to defy logic and reason."[/quote] [url]https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/04/20/federal-court-rules-texas-house-map-drawn-intentionally-dilute-minority-votes[/url]

So, where's the actual evidence that it was done with the racist intent and not with political intent like every other redistricting attempt from both parties?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52131748]So, where's the actual evidence that it was done with the racist intent and not with political intent like every other redistricting attempt from both parties?[/QUOTE] I mean, considering different demographics vote differently the results are one and the same.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52131748]So, where's the actual evidence that it was done with the racist intent and not with political intent like every other redistricting attempt from both parties?[/QUOTE] Kind of inherently racist to dilute a particular race's votes

[QUOTE=sgman91;52131748]So, where's the actual evidence that it was done with the racist intent and not with political intent like every other redistricting attempt from both parties?[/QUOTE] [quote]"The evidence of the mapdrawing process supports the conclusion that mapdrawers were motivated in part by an intent to dilute minority voting strength," U.S. District Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote in the 171-page ruling. "Discussions among mapdrawers demonstrated a hostility to creating any new minority districts as those were seen to be a loss of Republican seats, despite the massive minority population growth statewide."[/quote] It's not even "they accidentally drew lines that diluted minority voting power" it sounds like they explicitly went out of their way to draw lines that would make their votes meaningless and discussed it in their meetings lol. Your "evidence" is the fact that it's a federal fucking court case presided over by federal fucking judges who reviewed evidence in accordance with federal fucking law and concluded they were doing fucked up shit.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52131748]So, where's the actual evidence that it was done with the racist intent and not with political intent like every other redistricting attempt from both parties?[/QUOTE] Here you come with the same schlock you always post. "B-b-but the other side did something once too". We have a federal judge that has reviewed the evidence and come to this conclusion. Where's [B]your[/B] evidence, outside of "I don't want my side to look bad, so I'll bring up the other side too"?

I think the racism charge here is just added outrage. Think about it this way, minorities vote overwhelmingly democrat, so of course they won't do this shady stuff with white demographics that vote more for them to begin with, in Texas even more.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52132038]I think the racism charge here is just added outrage. Think about it this way, minorities vote overwhelmingly democrat, so of course they won't do this shady stuff with white demographics that vote more for them to begin with, in Texas even more.[/QUOTE] So I can argue that Slavery was totally not racist because they just did it for the economic advantages? "O-Oh, I totally shat on you based primarily on skin color yes, b-but it's not because I don't respect you as a person or anything like that, it's because it was advantageous to me, that's all!" "I-I'm just running whites-only buses because I'd lose business if I didn't!" This is a fucking terrible argument.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;52131964]Here you come with the same schlock you always post. "B-b-but the other side did something once too". We have a federal judge that has reviewed the evidence and come to this conclusion. Where's [B]your[/B] evidence, outside of "I don't want my side to look bad, so I'll bring up the other side too"?[/QUOTE] The difference is that federal courts don't block Democrats from doing the same thing in the opposite direction. As far as I can tell, the judge's argument is that redistricting in such a way that minorities lose representation is illegal, no matter the reason, but anyone else losing representation is just fine legally.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52132191]The difference is that federal courts don't block Democrats from doing the same thing in the opposite direction. As far as I can tell, the judge's argument is that redistricting in such a way that minorities lose representation is illegal, no matter the reason, but anyone else losing representation is just fine legally.[/QUOTE] Can you find me an instance in which Democrats specifically went out of their way to reduce the voting power of whites? I tried looking up "democrats redistricting to block whites from voting" on google but instead I just found tons of articles about how much undue power republicans have gotten from gerrymandering.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132207]Can you find me an instance in which Democrats specifically went out of their way to reduce the voting power of whites? I tried looking up "democrats redistricting to block whites from voting" on google but instead I just found tons of articles about how much undue power republicans have gotten from gerrymandering.[/QUOTE] That's the point. The judge didn't present anything to show that this specifically targeted minorities as opposed to targeting Democrats. The monolithic black voting block makes these essentially equivalent. His evidence was all correlation and no causation.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132207]Can you find me an instance in which Democrats specifically went out of their way to reduce the voting power of whites? I tried looking up "democrats redistricting to block whites from voting" on google but instead I just found tons of articles about how much undue power republicans have gotten from gerrymandering.[/QUOTE] Louisiana's 2nd district.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52132221]That's the point. The judge didn't present anything to show that this specifically targeted minorities as opposed to targeting Democrats. The monolithic black voting block makes these essentially equivalent. His evidence was all correlation and no causation.[/QUOTE] Why should we care whether they specifically targeted minorities or Democrats at large? The end result is the exact same, what's the difference?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132234]Louisiana's 2nd district.[/QUOTE] Which is a black majority district and the only black majority district in the state from what I'm reading, which... Concentrates the black vote in one district and the white vote among multiple districts. Did you just come up with an example of racially motivated gerrymandering against blacks while trying to come up with an example of it being carried out against whites? Or am I confused here? The more x-majority districts there are the more voting power that group has, no? Hell, every source I come up with claims that Louisiana's 2nd district is an example of republican gerrymandering? And claims that expanding it into the territory of the 6th district and breaking it into two separate districts would be more favorable to democrats?

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132263]Which is a black majority district and the only black majority district in the state from what I'm reading, which... Concentrates the black vote in one district and the white vote among multiple districts. Did you just come up with an example of racially motivated gerrymandering against blacks while trying to come up with an example of it being carried out against whites? Or am I confused here? The more x-majority districts there are the more voting power that group has, no? Hell, every source I come up with claims that Louisiana's 2nd district is an example of republican gerrymandering? And claims that expanding it into the territory of the 6th district and breaking it into two separate districts would be more favorable to democrats?[/QUOTE] It's a case where lines were specifically drawn to reduce the voting power of whites and boost the voting power of minorities. It's exactly what you asked for.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52132249]Why should we care whether they specifically targeted minorities or Democrats at large? The end result is the exact same, what's the difference?[/QUOTE] Because one makes it actually illegal and the other makes it just shitty.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132274]It's a case where lines were specifically drawn to reduce the voting power of whites and boost the voting power of minorities. It's exactly what you asked for.[/QUOTE] Not... Exactly? The districts are for congressional representation, drawing a big long snakey district to catch all the votes from one ethnic group and then plopping down more districts elsewhere that don't include that group at all strategically limits congressional representation of that group to one seat. Also the articles I've found claim that the republicans are responsible for the 2011 redistricting of Louisiana so how did the Democrats do something that the republicans did???

[QUOTE=geel9;52132281]Because one makes it actually illegal and the other makes it just shitty.[/QUOTE] So whenever they get caught minimizing minority votes, they can just say they were simply gerrymandering against democrats? This is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132290]Not... Exactly? The districts are for congressional representation, drawing a big long snakey district to catch all the votes from one ethnic group and then plopping down more districts elsewhere that don't include that group at all strategically limits congressional representation of that group to one seat. Also the articles I've found claim that the republicans are responsible for the 2011 redistricting of Louisiana so how did the Democrats do something that the republicans did???[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't limit them because they aren't limited to living in just that one area. Minorities do exist and do vote in all of the other districts. So what you're saying is you're fine with gerrymandering?

I can relate, its the same here in Maryland. Democrats water down the minority vote so they win all but one district. It's why every single district (except the 1st, which just so happens to be the Republican one) snakes into the DC Suburbs (Prince George's and Montgomery counties) and/or Baltimore city. Our current Republican governor, Larry Hogan, is extremely popular (70% approval rating), so if he runs for re-election, he'd be in office when it's time to redraw congressional districts. Hopefully he'll submit a map that's much less gerrymandered than the one passed under O'Mally. I wouldn't even mind if Democrats won the state 7-1 so long as it was fair.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52132310]This district is a majority black district in two black majority cities that elected a Vietnamese Republican. I don't see the handicap. I don't get it, should the blacks be diluted among whites? That is what is going on in OP. This is the opposite. This is the only majority black district west of Mississippi. [editline]21st April 2017[/editline] Because whites were previously disproportionately overpowered. This was fixed after the Civil Rights. [/QUOTE] I don't think anything is wrong with it. I like how it ensures they have representation. But it still fits his demand of a district drawn to lower the voting power of whites and boost the voting power of minorities, so I brought it up. He just doesn't want to accept that it's exactly what he asked for.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132322]No, it doesn't limit them because they aren't limited to living in just that one area. Minorities do exist and do vote in all of the other districts. [/QUOTE] Which is why every other district in Louisiana is red even though in Louisiana there was a 4% popular vote lead in 2012 for Obama and a 5% popular vote lead for Clinton in 2016. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132322]So what you're saying is you're fine with gerrymandering?[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you even going on about. No, I'm not fine with Gerrymandering, Gerrymandering sucks. But I asked for an example of Democrat Gerrymandering based on race and you apparently gave me an example of republican Gerrymandering. Unless you can find a persuasive article which can convince me that I've been propagandized to or something.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52132340]Gerrymandering to best promote representation, is it then gerrymandering or proper redistricting?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.[/QUOTE] It's technically gerrymandering.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132350]What the fuck are you even going on about. No, I'm not fine with Gerrymandering, Gerrymandering sucks. But I asked for an example of Democrat Gerrymandering based on race and you apparently gave me an example of republican Gerrymandering. Unless you can find a persuasive article which can convince me that I've been propagandized to or something.[/QUOTE] And I gave you a democrat district that was gerrymandered for black representation. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52132361]No? Ensuring proportionate representation doesn't favour one side?[/QUOTE] You heard it here first folks! A district gerrymandered to ensure representation of one side apparently doesn't favor that side at all! Seriously, are you guys being purposefully obtuse or something?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132385]You heard it here first folks! A district gerrymandered to ensure representation of one side apparently doesn't favor that side at all! Seriously, are you guys being purposefully obtuse or something?[/QUOTE] What? Proportional representation doesn't favor any side, it's proportional to the voting population.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132186]So I can argue that Slavery was totally not racist because they just did it for the economic advantages? "O-Oh, I totally shat on you based primarily on skin color yes, b-but it's not because I don't respect you as a person or anything like that, it's because it was advantageous to me, that's all!" "I-I'm just running whites-only buses because I'd lose business if I didn't!" This is a fucking terrible argument.[/QUOTE] How is this even equivalent to actions that have direct links to racism. With white only buses sure that would lose them business, but that's because someone is racist to begin with. Here these politicians diminished votes in areas that are the most opposed to them, which makes perfect sense for them to retain control. If someone would want to steal something specific that is concentrated mostly in minority neighborhoods, why should that be worse than just the act of stealing. I'm just saying that we should judge them for only what they did and not make the assumption and brand them extra evil. If they are racist then I should assume they wouldn't have done the same with an all white electorate, everything else the same. Sorry, but can't make that leap.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52132432]How is this even equivalent to actions that have direct links to racism. With white only buses sure that would lose them business, but that's because someone is racist to begin with. Here these politicians diminished votes in areas that are the most opposed to them, which makes perfect sense for them to retain to control. If someone would want to steal something specific that is concentrated mostly in minority neighborhoods, why should that be worse than just the act of stealing. I'm just saying that we should judge them for only what they did and not make the assumption and brand them extra evil. If they are racist then I should assume they wouldn't have done the same with an all white electorate, everything else the same. Sorry, but can't make that leap.[/QUOTE] If you're saying we should only judge them for what they did and what they did was minimize minority representation, why are we even having this discussion?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52132438]If you're saying we should only judge them for what they did and what they did was minimize minority representation, why are we even having this discussion?[/QUOTE] Because how can you tell, if they are motivated by racism when that's what they should do for these results even without that motivation.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52132481]Because how can you tell, if they are motivated by racism when that's what they should do for these results even without that motivation.[/QUOTE] Why do you care what their motivations are? You just said we should only judge them for their actions.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52132487]Why do you care what their motivations are? You just said we should only judge them for their actions.[/QUOTE] Because I'm responding to someone who went on a tirade about slavery and white only buses when I pointed out they would have done this whether motivated by racism or not? Also, I think you're automatically assuming racism here because of the consequences. Practically it's the same, but then why do we have, for example, different classifications for involuntary and intentional manslaughter. I made a similar point in my previous post.