Gerrymandering, in its best and most adaptive sense, is INTENDED to distort racial, for example balance. It's best purpose is to give voice to minorities who would otherwise be overwhelmed by the majority.
I don't think you mentioned NC. NC gerrymanders such that in a state in which the majority of registered voters are African American, 11 of 14 districts are distorted to result in Caucasian electeds. That is foul or corrupt gerrymandering.
It's very possible that I made a mistake. It's possible that I misremembered, and that the majority of registered voters in NC are Democrats, but 11 of the 14 district electeds are Republican. The distortion might be Party based, not race based.
Thank you for this article on the court decision. Somehow the way you have explained it all so well gives me hope that all is not lost in spite of their decision. Thanks again.
Question: Are there any districts in Louisiana that are majority Democrat where Blacks are a majority of the Democrat voters? Won't Blacks be able to elect Black representatives in those districts?
For example, if a district is 55% Democratic and Blacks are 60% of the Democratic voters, won't the Democrats be able to elect a Black representative even though Blacks make up only 33% of the districts voters?
That’s a fair question. From my (obviously limited) understanding, in theory, yes, but the law doesn’t assume those coalitions will work reliably.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the issue isn’t whether Black voters can sometimes elect a preferred candidate with help from others. It’s whether they have a consistent and independent opportunity to do so.
In practice, because voting is often racially polarized, a 55% Democratic district doesn’t guarantee that Black voters at 33% of the population can control the primary or reliably elect their candidate of choice.
That’s why courts, under Thornburg v. Gingles, focus on whether minority voters can consistently elect, not just potentially win in a favorable scenario.
Gerrymandering, in its best and most adaptive sense, is INTENDED to distort racial, for example balance. It's best purpose is to give voice to minorities who would otherwise be overwhelmed by the majority.
I don't think you mentioned NC. NC gerrymanders such that in a state in which the majority of registered voters are African American, 11 of 14 districts are distorted to result in Caucasian electeds. That is foul or corrupt gerrymandering.
It's very possible that I made a mistake. It's possible that I misremembered, and that the majority of registered voters in NC are Democrats, but 11 of the 14 district electeds are Republican. The distortion might be Party based, not race based.
Thank you for this article on the court decision. Somehow the way you have explained it all so well gives me hope that all is not lost in spite of their decision. Thanks again.
Question: Are there any districts in Louisiana that are majority Democrat where Blacks are a majority of the Democrat voters? Won't Blacks be able to elect Black representatives in those districts?
For example, if a district is 55% Democratic and Blacks are 60% of the Democratic voters, won't the Democrats be able to elect a Black representative even though Blacks make up only 33% of the districts voters?
That’s a fair question. From my (obviously limited) understanding, in theory, yes, but the law doesn’t assume those coalitions will work reliably.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the issue isn’t whether Black voters can sometimes elect a preferred candidate with help from others. It’s whether they have a consistent and independent opportunity to do so.
In practice, because voting is often racially polarized, a 55% Democratic district doesn’t guarantee that Black voters at 33% of the population can control the primary or reliably elect their candidate of choice.
That’s why courts, under Thornburg v. Gingles, focus on whether minority voters can consistently elect, not just potentially win in a favorable scenario.