Assume this came out earlier today as Trump been endorsing all day…

Quote:

---

When will the SC decision on the VRA be known

---

Up to SCOTUS.

They are not final because the are infallible they are infallible because they are final. Justice Jackson. (Not the current one.)

Rapier108 said:

---

Pretty much confirms they're going to nuke Sec. 2 of the VRA.

Also, Democrats are planning to pull a California in Virginia, override the commission and change the map from 6-5 Democrat to 10-1 Democrat

---

You can only slice that bread so thin.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No brainer. The lower court was way out of line.

---

Sad to see Jeff Brown go so far bonkers in his opinion. Judge Jerry Smith's dissent is so dang good.

Yuge! Another feather in the cap for Paxton.

It was always crazy. In the south you had to gerrymander to maximize minority representation, but rest of country could gerrymander for any reason. Look at new map versus old map in Texas and tell me which is more gerrymandered (the old one).

If you think liberals are pissed now wait until the VRA is gutted and we pick up 19 more seats in further redistricting across the south.

On the Virginia issue, the conservative part of Virginia should try to join West Virginia and abandon the leftist belt dominated by federal bureaucrats near the Capitol to their own delusional politics.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

On the Virginia issue, the conservative part of Virginia should try to join West Virginia and abandon the leftist belt dominated by federal bureaucrats near the Capitol to their own delusional politics.

---

That's just not going to happen. To say the least, Richmond didn't have a lot of choice in the matter during/after the civil war, but statehouses have to approve any change of borders with other states, and it's incredibly unlikely the Dems in Richmond would approve this (nor congress). Same issue with western Washington/Oregon/Northern California.

There's a conflation happening that this is directly related to the pending VRA case, but I don't think that is necessarily true. The appellate decision very wrongly determined that this redistricting was done on the basis of nefarious racial motivations, and political motivation in fact was the reason, which is fine by SCOTUS standards as re-iterated here (note, there is no longer a Texas consent decree issue with DoJ about pre-approving redistributing lines, unlike in the past).

I do think the VRA case will go in favor of 'the good guys' but that isn't really what the court implied this week. A lot of folks get too far into reading the tea leaves about what oral arguments etc. mean for a future SCOTUS landmark opinion. It's guess work, at best.

I understand this. Just commenting in what should be able to happen were things allowed to work logically and coherently.

In my perfect world every ten years a computer would pick the districts in every state based on equal population and no gerrymandering. No other criteria.

Gaeilge said:

---

Adios Crockett!!

---

Hear me out on this. Giving her a district keeps those voters out of other districts which might have a closer vote. Also, she is an excellent ambassador for the DNC.

Personally, I am hoping she runs for the Senate. I have seen polls showing her leading in the primary, and regardless of which of the 3 the GOP nominates, I think she's political cannon fodder in the general.

That said, she'd easily win the re-drawn district if she chickens out on her senatorial aspirations, imho.

Clavell said:

---

In my perfect world every ten years a computer would pick the districts in every state based on equal population and no gerrymandering. No other criteria.

---

Which computer program do we use? TikTok? ChatGPT? Dominion?

Any computer must be programmed… by a human. You have to tell it what parameters to make the decision on. Those parameters will always introduce bias.

I don't know what the answer is but it's simply not as simple as having a computer do it.

Thank god.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Clavell said:

---

In my perfect world every ten years a computer would pick the districts in every state based on equal population and no gerrymandering. No other criteria.

---

Which computer program do we use? TikTok? ChatGPT? Dominion?

Any computer must be programmed… by a human. You have to tell it what parameters to make the decision on. Those parameters will always introduce bias.

I don't know what the answer is but it's simply not as simple as having a computer do it.

---

The Russians would hack it.

I cannot see where anyone would think that the after redistricting map was more gerrymandered than the before map. Of course my classes are not tinted like most liberals.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Clavell said:

---

In my perfect world every ten years a computer would pick the districts in every state based on equal population and no gerrymandering. No other criteria.

---

Which computer program do we use? TikTok? ChatGPT? Dominion?

Any computer must be programmed… by a human. You have to tell it what parameters to make the decision on. Those parameters will always introduce bias.

I don't know what the answer is but it's simply not as simple as having a computer do it.

---

I gave my parameters and it is simple enough that quick look at code can ensure other parameters aren't introduced.

They are drawn based on equal population as it is now. What exactly are you proposing?

flown-the-coop said:

---

They are drawn based on equal population as it is now. What exactly are you proposing?

---

No gerrymandering at all. Based on equal population and as symmetric as possible. This is usually the case now, except when around large cities.

Not trying to be difficult, so bear with me.

Someone has to define "symmetrically as possible". Even taking the city center and going out from there, how you slice that pie still injects judgment. And with that bias and manipulation.

I have not looked at it in a while, but the districts are to represent the people's voice for a set population with states determining how best to do that for their state.

Surely there is a better way, but each proposal will have lots of holes, issues, challenges and inevitably court cases.

I don't think it would be that difficult. There would be a randomization component to it for sure. A district may split a neighborhood one time and when done 10 years later it doesn't. Luck of the dice. The key is no parameter included for political party, race, economics or anything. Start with the number of representatives you have and those boxes shrink or expand based on population numbers to fill state. Citizens only of course.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Clavell said:

---

In my perfect world every ten years a computer would pick the districts in every state based on equal population and no gerrymandering. No other criteria.

---

Which computer program do we use? TikTok? ChatGPT? Dominion?

Any computer must be programmed… by a human. You have to tell it what parameters to make the decision on. Those parameters will always introduce bias.

I don't know what the answer is but it's simply not as simple as having a computer do it.

---

It can be done ... use equal pop requirements, maybe use compactness measurements, maybe use a county line rule to minimize county splitting. Maybe even introduce city limit splitting rules. Eliminate all racial and election data until post enactment for research purposes only.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the three liberal justices that her colleagues should not have intervened at this point. Doing so, she wrote, "ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution."

---

Therefore, we, the partisan hack side of the Supreme Court, believe Texas must use the old map which ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race.

---

I've said it many times. If it weren't for double standards democrats would have no standards.

Ag with kids said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Supreme Court allows Texas to use a congressional map favorable to Republicans in 2026 https://www.click2houston.com/news/politics/2025/12/04/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-use-a-congressional-map-favorable-to-republicans-in-2026/

---

Quote:

---

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the three liberal justices that her colleagues should not have intervened at this point. Doing so, she wrote, "ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution."

---

Sounds like Kagan will be voting to invalidate Sec 2 of the VRA, right? Right???



Bwahahahaha...

---

Expecting Kagan to remain intellectually honest between two cases with very similar issues is a slim reed to cling to.