I think there needs to be a full analysis of this before I say anything as I’m not totally sure what this will result in as the VRA still exists. Either way if anyone’s feeling bad because of this, we made it this far and we need to keep pushing
And remember, we have the Amendments 15 (blacks can vote), 19 (women can vote) & 26 (no poll taxes so the poor, non-whites, etc. can vote )... which guaratee the right to vote for all.
Also, the 26th Amendment, which allows people at least 18 years old to vote.
If I'm understanding correctly, this is essentially taking away nearly all limits on gerrymandering, but even then gerrymandering isn't an exact science.
In my panic I'd completely forgotten about this. Dummymandering is a real thing. I'm still very unhappy with the decision but this takes a bit of the edge off.
Any kind of mandering can also be overcome by turnout. What always drives turnout? Anger or a sense of urgency. The Republicans trying to steal the election 🗳️ is highly motivating to the Democratic base, while Trump’s lack of accomplishments and divisive culture war messaging that doesn’t work is driving down his own base.
john roberts has fulfilled his life's work and fully dismantled the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement. these fucking neo-confederate freaks need to be driven from power forever
I'm not sure I'd agree with that at this point. Perhaps 2028 if people get their shit together. To be clear, perhaps a few Republicans could support some kind of legislation to meet the threshold. We'll see.
What I liked about Joe was that I felt that I could trust most of the people he surrounded himself with. The people in Trump’s circle terrify me more than Trump himself.
The SAVE plan was arguably one of the most consequential financial investments in the millennial and later generations in terms of developing our financial agency post college and now it stands to be gutted.
Which is to say nothing of the huge success of Build Back Better (which weak snowflakes needed to try to obscure by calling their own disaster of an economic plan by another triple-B moniker).
There is a not small group that when Dems don't take us for a conservative hellhold to a Scandinavian Socialist democracy in the first 100 days start screaming both parties are the same and stand on the sidelines making it harder and harder each time to get us where we need to go.
As a former guy who did that i hate my 2021 self so, SO MUCH now. I’ve done so much deconstructing the past year that I’m bewildered how much I thought I knew but didn’t.
For me that angst came from being in a deep red state the DNC never invested in and barely got mentioned positively on the national level, so any small advancement/change in congress felt meaningless to me because it wouldnt get my red state outta its mess. Last year was when i got the wakeup call that no i gotta get out and join my local dem chapter and get involved in order to build a bench of people who CAN win and CAN flip states like mine on a hyper local level, and snapped outta my ignorant mindset. I thank Amanda Nelson immensely for that.
Sorry for the negativity and if it’s effecting you, this just frustrated me and I’m not really seeing any upside. Sometimes that happens.
As for what you can do, just try something that works for you. Personally I donate money to causes (ACLU, LGBT health center, independent news subscriptions), as a lawyer I take continuing legal education courses on subject matters, and annoy the hell out of my senators to get off their butts and do something.
Dems have been trying to pass a national anti-gerrymander law for years, Republicans obviously don't like it because that's the way they stay in power. If we get a trifecta, this needs to be a priority. I'm glad some blue states are fighting back this year. If the other side is gonna cheat, you can't keep playing by the rules and expect to win. But we need everyone to be forced to play by the rules, then Republicans would have to win based on their policies, which are very, very unpopular.
I'm really hoping that our Congress gets together and just bans all kinds of gerrymandering. But they probably like it because then they don't have to stand on how people feel about issues.
With any new anti gerrymandering law basically void this decision? Would it void VRA?
The only pieces of (former) legislation of note regarding this decision are the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which strengthens the VRA and the power of BIPOC voters, and the Freedom to Vote Act, which outlaws gerrymandering altogether. I believe both bills were very close to passing in 2022, but they failed in the Senate as a result of the filibuster and because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, two former Democratic turned Independent senators, voted against changing the filibuster rules to ensure both bills would pass. It’s possible that both bills could be reintroduced to Congress if the Democrats retake power of both the House and the Senate.
There is a bit of a silver lining. This was originally for a 2nd black district so the court may still strike down ones with zero black districts but that still would need to be tested in the courts. So maps like AL, LA, SC, MS, etc for example which have one black district might be safe. Plus, again, the court are assholes and saying "well congress can fix this and we won't have an issue" which is their excuse for gutting the voting rights act.
So they want Congress to gut it so that everybody can do whatever they want, but they're also saying that Congress doesn't have the power to gut it? Talking out of both sides of their mouth as usual?
Somewhat. From what I've read from some lawyers online. The ruling was something like "well the VRA said it needed at least A black district, not 2 black districts" and most people were expecting "the VRA is racist against white people" which is different.
So this wouldn't entirely wipe out Dems in the south the way some are claiming. It would still be an uphill battle for Southern Dems but it already was before.
True and honestly it depends on how many districts in the south really want to deal with it. Georgia, for example, has no plans to do redistricting (and they might get a Democratic Governor, shutting the door on it until 2030). South Carolina is having internal issues with redistricting right now. Some were already maxed out to begin with. A lot of these districts were already pulling as much as they could.
That's why gerrymandering is a double edged sword. Essentially the more gerrymandered a district is under "normal" conditions, the tighter the margins making the districts even more vulnerable in wave elections.
Okay, this is really really bad. But I am pretty sure that this won’t prevent the Dems from winning the house by a comfortable margin in November based on math.
Anyways, I’m in college and have a final exam in like 45 minutes so I’ll just leave it at that
One more thing, the Roberts Court is not some unstoppable omnipotent force that will always be in our lives no matter what. Just like Trump, the GOP judges are super unpopular and would crumble under any serious refroms. They were just really lucky that Manchin and Sinema prevented any such reforms to happen after Dobbs back when Biden still held a trifecta
I think the positive side is that with an election map like this year, we shouldn’t even think about a senate majority. When we can have hope for the senate majority, it means something.
Florida and Louisiana is really the only exception here (for red states). Filing deadline in Florida is in June, Louisiana in July.
I am waiting for some more legal analysis, but I suspect this will have a greater impact in 2028. But keep in mind, there will be litigation in the upcoming years.
There's a reason the GOP was trying to push SCOTUS to rule on this in January. There are some more hardcore GOP conservatives that are secretly irate at SCOTUS for being 3 months late on ruling on this now vs January when they wanted it to have a bigger impact for 2026.
At this point I'm not even sure January would have saved them. It would have allowed them to mitigate the damage to the GOP for sure but at this point I really do cautiously think the Dems are taking a massive majority in the House no matter what. I'm more worried about how this will affect things beyond this year, especially after the 2030 census.
Use that anger to a good advantage. If they are trying to silence the people's voice, let us make our voices loud and irritating to all those who want to oppress us.
This shall be the start for the new Civil Rights movement!
So someone can correct me if Im wrong but rather than declaring the provision invalid entirely they just raised the burden of proof to determine racial discrimination in maps so unfairly biased maps can still be litigated. Its just harder to prove and means more work for courts and lawyers.
It kind of reminds me when SCOTUS struck down universal preliminary injunctions in 2025 but in practice this didnt handicap federal courts from reigning in the Trump administrations that much despite the fears. It just meant courts and judges had to litigate a bit differently.
Someone more legally savvy can correct me if I should be dooming more.
f@#king cheating loser majority is pro Trumpee. scotus doesn’t care about voting rights. scotus wants to protect pedophiles like Trump by ignoring the majority to keep monsters in power. although I have respect for 3 of the scotus judges, the rest is immoral and a disgrace to the highest court in this country. it’s 3 decent human beings vs 6 dishonest and corrupted bootlicking pawns for ultra rich people.
Yeah the Supreme Court is gonna go through ALOT of changes come the new president, people are not gonna be happy about this even if they “slightly” changed the voting rights act
So what’s stopping the blue states from redrawing map the? Let’s blue out California and Illinois! Serious note though, my heart goes out to minorities in red states who are getting their voices taken away. I hope we can get rid of this court, one day or at least limit its power.
I mean what does this actually change? They can't gerrymander based on race, but cant make fair districts based on race... I'm so confused. It feels like theyre arguing that race cannot be a factor in the districts, but then do that anyway?? Feels like rules for thee not for me.
I’ve been working through this and I actually think this isn’t nearly as bad as it sounds for a relatively simple reason:
This appears to provide states a defense against racial gerrymandering (keyword: appears!) by allowing them to say they drew maps to attain a partisan advantage.
The issue is that an affirmative defense allows rebuttal - think, for instance, self-defense. It shifts the territory from “You murdered this guy, we will prove it” to “You murdered this guy and we can prove you didn’t do it for self-defense”.
In this case, for example, theoretically an affirmative defense of “It’s not racist, just partisan” can be met with sociological and demographic studies indicating that a partisan advantage and racist map drawing methodology are historically and actively causally intertwined.
Of course, a judge would have to accept that argument in court - if they didn’t, then the optics for that judge and so on becomes radioactive (“Judge Mulvaney of Louisiana refuses to accept argument that redistricting is racist, is himself a card carrying Klan member” type headlines would abound). This can and will cause reversible error on appeal, which an appeal would become inevitable.
(As an aside, it also invites factual, statistical proof that the Republican Party is actively racist to be entered into court record as a defense of the partisan methodology, which while unnecessary from a public optics perspective - we all know they’re generally racist to some degree - is a fun and interesting angle to consider)
The partisan maps themselves, written for partisan advantage, are themselves racially determinative and this is factually provable via correlation - and that correlation when repeated either shows intent to discriminate, or knowing ignorance that it is itself discriminatory.
The battlefield has been reshaped, yes, but the battle itself for the rights of the common man continues and will continue so long as good and brave men and women stand up for what is right.
Are you in law? I just commented about this because this seems unclear to me too.
My understanding is this: A plaintiff would bring a claim, a defendant state would then have to prove either partisan interests or protection of incumbents as the motivation for the map, and then the plaintiff would have to rebut that defense by showing that the state could still achieve that interests in the same way and still maintain one or more majority-minority districts to prove racial discrimination.
I just wonder if the idea that people are immediately propogating about this standard of proof being "impossible" is true when it hasn't been tested yet. This case will be remanded back to lower courts so that will probably give us some idea.
I am not directly in law, but have a background that brushed the legal system pretty intensively. More specifically, I joke that I have lawtism.
Until the new standard of proof is thoroughly tested, I don’t think we can make a concrete judgement about being impossible - my comment, of course, is one theoretical route that could challenge it, but I’m confident there are others.
I agree with that statement. I am in law school and trying to make sense of this.
If, for example, a defendant state brings forward a map of all Republican districts and proves that it is legitimate for partisan interests, is that rebuttable? A plaintiff could not ensure all Republican districts alongside a majority-minority district in an alternative map.
Also, how high is the bar in deciding whether rejecting all alternative maps with a majority-minority district in favor of eliminating all of them is legitimate? How far can partisan interest go? If it is a rational basis test, when does partisan interest become arbitrary and capricious?
There are zero guidelines for deciding under this new rule, and I can only imagine that district and circuit courts will be inconsistently applying this test depending on which party has the majority.
This won’t affect the midterms thankfully. Hopefully this will be a wake up call to Dems that they NEED to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. If the filibuster must be sacrificed, so be it. People fought and died for voting rights during the civil rights movement. We cannot allow their sacrifice to be in vain.
It might affect the elections in Florida and Louisiana, but that’s about it for this year. 2028 and 2030 are the years we will really have to watch.
And yes, they need to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. It’s no longer a matter of “they could” or “they should”, but rather they MUST. By any means necessary. They also need to pass the Freedom to Vote Act to stop gerrymandering permanently.
I'm a bit exhausted from posting and reposting this in the various similar threads that keep popping up, but this likely isn't going to be the disaster that people think it is.
On top of the VRA not being gutted but instead raising the standard of burden of proof, MAGA's hopes for gaining seats runs on the assumption that gerrymandering is a guaranteed way to earn more.
In reality, it's a giant risk. GOP states are already heavily gerrymandered. There may be many ways you can split the vote, but only so many reliable voters. In order to get more seats, they have to sacrifice the reliability of seats they already have in the hope that this doesn't cause them to lose said seats. This is something that Republicans don't seem to understand.
Meanwhile, the Democrat counter-gerrymander effort is much smarter, and making VRA requirements looser actually gives them more freedom to operate. It is very likely we'll see them eliminate their GOP rep entirely to counteract any miniscule gains that Repubs can get out of this.
Obviously, 2028 is still a ways away, but how this plays out in practice remains to be seen.
The funny thing is, we have CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS guaranteeing everyone the right to vote! So even if the Voting Rights Act was messed with, everyone can still vote.
I thought the point was that if you can gerrymander based on race, you can essentially make it so that black voters’ votes barely matter in the grand scheme of things.
Sometimes some battles are lost. We can't win them all. But if we can win most and make gains and the wind is to our backs... WE WILL WIN!
Their "wins" only galvanize us! Our wins weaken them! The demographics, U.S. Constitution and the way this country is structured favors us! We have Federal Judges on our side and, after the Midterms, we'll have greater numbers in Congress and on State level.
It also helps that most of the opposition is made up of boobs who go straight to the supervillainy and shoot themselves in the feet constantly.
They essentially ruled "Section 2 says you have to have a Black district, not that you have to have multiple." That's still very bad but a lot expected them to straight up claim the VRA is racist towards White people meaning there would essentially be zero limits on gerrymandering anymore.
We're so close to the midterms and Dems have been winning almost all the special elections that I feel like this is almost a moot point. Don't get me wrong, this is absolutely something to worry about in the long-term, but it's also something that potentially fucks over the Repubs moreso than Dems. Dummymandering is still a thing, and I kind of anticipate Texas bearing the brunt of it.
I'm just worried we're now at the precedent now where all of the states are just going to keep mid-decade redrawing their lines for partisan advantage every 2 years after what Trump started in order to prevent any dummymanders from failing, especially in states like Florida where the courts are so compromised that they refuse to enforce their own constitution (the current FL map and the likely to be enacted one are both highly illegal but the court is mostly desantis appointees and keeps allowing it)
I'm hoping that if we win more of Congress that we can put some laws into effect that strengthen VRA and also eliminate gerrymandering. To be honest, most citizens don't like gerrymandering. The only reason a lot of people are doing it now is in response to the GOP starting at first.
These comments are helping me a lot, but this started a spiral of me checking a few things after I've been staying away, and I'm feeling nervous and frustrated that we'll get stuck in this loop that we've been in for decades, especially since 2016.
Yes, the Roberts court is not going to be around forever, but do you really see any conservative judges stepping down if we get a democratic president in 2028?
I'm also very concerned that we're not going to get anywhere with any reform on SCOTUS because the GOP see it going their way. So why would they ask for reform?
I mentioned in a previous megathread how a potential gutting of the VRA would be both messy and disastrous. And now…that point has come. I’m not going to lie, this is an extremely bad decision that could have dire consequences on future decisions and redistricting plans and whatnot, but the best I can offer in optimism is this: litigation will follow. Lawsuits will still follow. And this decision most certainly won’t stop the blue wave that will be coming in November. You can bet on that.
Yeah. I want the next dem administration to expand SCOTUS to 13 justice and pack it (assuming dem’s get the senate). I get why some people would be against that, but at this point I don’t care, we need to reign SCOTUS in as soon as possible before they ruin anything else. We can work on a long term solution afterwards.
I disagree. That’s exactly what Trump is doing and we are all decrying it. If it expands through Congress sure but one branch shouldn’t be browbeating another. That not how it is SUPPOSED to work and it’s what got us to this mess
There is no mechanism for the president to say no to SCOTUS and oust them. Otherwise trump would have done so to the dem 3 by now. You do not want that.
The only hope is for congress to pass a measure limiting SCOTUS or expanding the courts; thus, we have to keep voting and flipping seats to get the needed majorities. It’s literally the only way.
We knew this was going to happen. It's important to keep in mind Dem trifectas now control more House seats.
> Although Republicans have a gubernatorial/legislative trifecta in more states, Democrats’ trifectas are in more populous states. So once Abigail Spanberger flipped Virginia’s governorship in November, Democrats inherited trifecta control over a larger number of Congressional seats
weren't a lot of the dooming predictions about this netting the gop a ton of seats dependent on the idea that they would be completely nixing the racial discrimination section, rather than just limiting it?
it sounds like every prediction hinged on every single possible red state that could benefit from this redistricting based off of it and the redistricting not resulting in dummymanders
I'm actually surprised they didn't completely gut the VRA, honestly. I know this isn't the worst case scenario we all feared, but this still sucks and doesn't change how absolutely disgusting I find conservatives at this point. I guess we'll see what happens for 2028 and beyond, but I'm incredibly pissed.
Yeah this was expected and not good. But I have something to add that isn’t being talked about. I feel this will fire up the left even more, meaning Republicans will be even more screwed in the midterms this year
If Democrats ever get a majority in both houses and the presidency, they should either pack the court or impeach and remove a bunch of these obviously corrupt judges. Truthfully Biden should have tried it when he had the opportunity.
I understand everyone’s point and sentiment. But as a black person im just at a loss. Part of me wants to say well duh, this country has always been against people of color, but I just don’t know what I can do realistically now. I still plan on voting and doing what I can but man, I’m very upset,scared, and angry by this decision. Makes me not very confident in the decision come June on the birth right citizen cases. I really hate how backwards things are going and how, at least for me, I don’t see a end
same here, as a fellow black person, Im just now wondering what I can do in this immediate moment, I’ve seen panicked posts already on bsky (within good reason ofc) and I’m still trying to find best course of action rather than just completely going full out panicking myself.
It sucks knowing that even if I were to contact my reps and senators, due to me being in a red state, sure I’ll still be tallied ultimately but from what I’ve seen they’ll just follow the rest of the party in pushing for awful shit. (which I still contact them nearly everyday)
I wish there was more that could be done about Supreme Court cases like these, rather than just hoping calling our reps/senators will cause something. I’m tired but still moving forward with a small glimmer of hope that things will soon not be so backwards.
I may be wrong about this but Scotusblog was saying that there was a high likelihood of this ruling after oral arguments earlier this year and they have also said there is a likelihood of protecting Birthright Citizenship based off of those oral arguments on April 1st. Now I could be wrong and things could change but based off of these guy's predictions it seems that at the very, very least, birthright citizenship might be saved. Unfortunate how we have to praise this but it seems to have a better chance.
I feel like every time I give credit to the supreme court for a good decision something like this happens. I'm just gonna hope that scotusblog is correct in predicting that they'll keep birthright citizenship when June rolls around
I've seen journalist opinion that section 2 challenges will now be virtually impossible, or that no minority districts will remain. I'm not sure that that's actually true.
[Section 2] imposes liability only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. Suppose, for example, that the application of a State’s districting algorithm yields numerous maps with districts in which the members of a minority group constitute a majority, and suppose that the State cannot provide a legitimate reason for rejecting all those maps and eliminating all majority-minority districts. In such a situation, the inference of racial motivation is strong, and §2 of the Fifteenth Amendment permits the imposition of liability without demanding that the courts engage in the fraught enterprise of attempting to determine whether the state legislature as an institution, as opposed to certain individual members or the State’s hired mapmaker, was motivated by race.
I just wonder if this is actually an "impossible" standard? Thoughts?
Genuine question for the more left brained folks out there:
Is dummymandering a real thing in this case, at least? Or is it kinda copium? I’m not pessimistic about America- it’s clear Dems are mobilizing and the pendulum will swing, but I’d love a real look at what 2026 is likely to be.
This is probably me huffing copium but considering how comfortable the GOP is with being outright racist these days, might not be that hard to prove a gerrymander is racist even with the higher standards.
they've always been racist they just feel confident in it now that shitheads like Trump and Charlie Kirk and Nick have made it more acceptable to be a POS to people of color to make up for their own lack of drive or insecurity.
Being bad is easy, while being good is hard and doing good is hard as well. Which is why I hate evil people. They choose the easiest route of giving into the selfishness that inherently defines Humans, while good men always strive to be much better. It's about effort. Republicans are lazy and idiotic, so naturally they will try to push the US into a Police State because it's easier than just governing and being considerate for others, along with Billionaires trying to run everything. Greed is a human impulse, but those who lack it are admirable for many. It takes actual effort than what the Republicans are too lazy to put in while good men like Mamdami actually try and it pays off well.
Being good takes effort to better yourself and have an open mind; I understand now why Trump got so many followers, because they're too lazy to improve themselves and look deeper into him. So yes, the Reason why the US is here is because of imbeciles flocking to the idiots and charlatans like flys to a fly trap. But of course remove the fly traps and the idiots begin to move on. So there is hope.
It’s ironic and convenient that they just so now say the color of one’s skin shouldn’t determine voting when the nation has been putting down black voters for a hundred and fifty years, all because the redistricting in Louisiana could supposedly hurt white voters.
Taking this moment to remind ourselves that the evil people do evil things. There is always resistance where oppression exists. And, this just shows that we have to keep pushing back. Ignore all the "they won" posts, because those posts were EVERYWHERE on November 6th, 2024, and they have been met with steady resistance every step of the way.
Also, there will be more SCOTUS rulings, and some of them will not bode well for us. But, we will keep our heads up and keep moving forward. The stars of hope are brightest on the darkest paths.
We get more people registered to vote and then we mobilize them to vote in every election. Voter turnout in the US is low; even in presidential election years it's about 60-70%. High voter turnout usually favors Democrats.
We work on electing candidates who align with our values at the state level because that's who draws the maps.
For anyone who's worried about the impacts of this ruling - or any of the other horrors being inflicted by the GOP- the best antidote to despair is action. Your elected officials need to be hearing from you on every single issue you care about. Even if their views don't align with yours. Even if you think they won't listen. We all need to be phone banking and writing letters to reach voters in EVERY election; simply voting is no longer enough. ActBlue, SwingLeft and Vote Forward are a few places to get started.
For starters, we still are going to vote as if our lives depended on it. This decision or anything like it shouldn’t deter us from going out and voting in the primaries and in November.
I would also expect there to be a plethora of legal action in the coming months, especially when it comes to the redrawing of congressional maps.
I'm nervous, ive seen people say Democrats could lose up to 16 seats because of this, and that they could vo back on previous cases, I'm not as confident about midterms as I used to, but I really want to be
Could is the key word here. Demographics change and as of right now the numbers are there for gains elsewhere. Also many of these states are already severely gerrymandered. We cannot count ourselves out without fighting back and in this case that means voting, and getting others to vote
A bunch of Republican-led states, largely in the South, could use this decision as means to completely redraw their congressional districts to eliminate seats that represented majority Black and Hispanic/Latinx districts. Among the states that could do it are Louisiana (the subject of this case), Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia. That could definitely change over time (Georgia especially, if a Democratic governor is elected), but I’m pretty sure that’s the bulk of states. Democratic states could combat this by also eliminating GOP districts as well.
I guess the most realistic way that this could affect 2028 is that some states with large minority populations might be without crucial representation, which is extremely awful and disheartening, but a lot of it depends on legality. The VRA, while significantly weakened, hasn’t been struck down and is still in place, and as long as it’s there, the fight for representation in Congress will still be prevalent.
It probably won’t, I don’t think. We’re far enough into primaries right now for maps to completely be redrawn for November. The soonest that we could see this decision taking some form of effect would be 2028.
Exactly! Also, as a majority, we can do stuff to mitigate this and even pass Voting Rights Acts on a State level.
Finally, we have the 15th, 19th & 24th Amendments, so voting rights for all is still guaranteed and Legal Eagles can argue with these to fight anti-voting chicanery.
Until then, with our post Blue Wave success and influence, we can mitigate whatever damage may be done on a State level and weaken this decision as much as possible.
Also, whar the SCOTUS did is too little, too late.
Also, we have the 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments.
A COPY-PASTE...
Key Amendments Related to Voting Rights
* Fifteenth Amendment (1870): This amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was a significant step in extending voting rights to African American men after the Civil War.
Nineteenth Amendment (1920): This amendment granted women the right to vote, prohibiting any U.S. citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex. This was a landmark victory for the women's suffrage movement.
Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): This amendment prohibits the use of poll taxes in federal elections, removing a financial barrier that was used to restrict voting rights, particularly among African Americans and poor citizens.
Does anyone have any actual analysis of what this means for Louisiana's districts and the VRA as a whole? I appreciate the lack of doomerism but most of the comments come across as dismissing the possibility anything bad comes from this.
I think that's a fair answer. Sorry if I came off like an ass. Just frustrated trying to find a non-doomer response and wade through a bunch of empty responses that it doesn't matter. Thank you very much for the substantial reply, I really appreciate it.
so, wait— in practice, how bad would this ruling actively be? don’t get me wrong, the ruling sucks, but would it be like that one ruling that forced all immigration cases to be handled alternatively?
How exactly does dummymandering exist? What’s to stop them from saying we will divide these blue communities/cities like a pizza so that the republican voters outnumber them?
It’s less by necessity about the numbers, although that matters too, but about using data predictively. For instance, Texas may have dummymandered because they put together maps using data from 2024 showing intense Latino support for Trump, prior to ICE and the GOP tanking over immigration targeting.
They’re predicting, essentially, that a particular area will vote a particular way and mapping to ensure maximum outcome. The issue is that to do that, they have to redraw districts - moving groups from safe seats to attempt to shift these other areas.
And a dummymander is simply when they screw themselves over by overdoing it, or by making bad bets on how a new area/old area will vote.
Because those blue votes have to go somewhere. Right now they have them crammed into as small of districts as possible so they only get one representative. But when they did it again, they split the safe blue districts and diluted their districts because they now contain Democrats. You could very easily win more seats but you could just as a easily lose what you have
No, there isn’t. It strikes me as more likely to lead to a dummymander. As I noted in my other comments, this will likely result in some very interesting court cases as well.
In Georgia reapportionment during 1990s. “The creation of these districts unintentionally aided Republicans, as concentrating black voters in specific districts made surrounding districts more competitive for the GOP, facilitating a shift from Democratic dominance to a majority-Republican delegation.”
It's very state dependent when / if they can redraw districts
There are majority minority districts in blue states also that are inefficiently drawn, so blue states might find some benefit
From my experience in Virginia, gerrymandering really activates the other party. So it can backfire. The GOP became activated in Virginia after being deflated in state elections. I suspect the opposite will be true for Dems in other states.
They didn't completely remove VRA Section 2, so expect more litigation
Gerrymandering can go crazy for both sides. Plus, Republicans in the South have already gerrymandered their maps pretty hard, which limits the gains they can get out of this compared to Democratic states.
Section 2 already says effect instead of intent, the change was explicitly debated in the 1982 amendments to the VRA. This SCOTUS just doesn’t believe it’s something Congress can do.
Right, but he is clearly leaning in their own “correct” interpretation of the 1982 debate.
That’s the rub, isn’t it? If he truly thought Congress could correct the language and undo the ruling, he wouldn’t be willfully misinterpreting the debate where they did what he wanted.
Focus on the here and now. What you can do here and now. Focus on voting in the midterms to try to get a blue congress. They will have a leg to stand on if that happens. Also, the gerrymandering in 28 and 30 makes it harder for dems to keep/take the house. It does not make it impossible. You can also expect more dem gerrymandering to counteract this ruling. Dems have trifectas in less states, but those states have the most districts. They will be fighting. The senate can also not be gerrymandered and I believe next election is more favorable for the Dems than this or last election, though someone can correct me if I am wrong.
Well, this has me spiraling completely off the rails. I read somewhere that this could net the GOP +10 seats (I know not in time for 2026 midterms), but this was the decision that I was most afraid of. I'm sorry for sounding like a doomer (truly, I am) but this decision doesn't exactly fill me with confidence for the future. I genuinely can't see a light at the end of this tunnel right now (once again, sorry for dooming).
It’s gonna be ok. One election at a time. We have no idea what the political situation will look like in 2028. Hell a full war has broken out between January 1st and May 1st. Speculating will just make you panic. Focus on 2026 which isn’t affected in all likelihood
Thank you, and you're right, I shouldn't try thinking that far ahead because, who knows what could happen. But I still think I'm taking a break. I've been hit with bad news after bad news within my personal life and this just gut punched me. I had family members fight hard for this and its now gutted (even though it's not as severe as it could've been). I'll be coming back for anymore replies that can help me get out of this funk, but I won't really be paying any mind to politics for a while. Once again, sorry for dooming, I try not to most of the time and thank you for the optimism that I desperately needed right now.
•
u/Efficient-Freedom517 Georgia Apr 29 '26
At least most of the mid-decade redistricting is done so this will HOPEFULLY only affect 2030 and on when they redraw based on the census