So Louisiana Vs. Callais was decided, and districts created specifically for minority people are not lawful. I read up on the case, why it was there and the result, several times, over and over and over. What exactly am I missing here on how this restricts peoples votes? Anyone can vote, anywhere, anytime, as long as you are eligible to do so. So how does this restrict peoples voting rights?

Essentially this appears to be a thinly veiled, "but their votes don't help us win because they are not within districts we are elected in so its discriminatory", some websites state it's because their votes basically don't matter since they're lost in a district that primarily may vote differently. Add that to the outcry that the Voting Rights Act is being "hollowed" out, and this just seems like a tantrum. How can you hollow out that act, when redistricting is being done to create pockets that vote for a specific political candidate? I understand the point was originally to help ensure that minority groups right to vote is maintained and outside pressure to limit it is unlawful, so if that's the case corralling them into certain spaces that may infringe upon a portion of that same populations desire to vote differently than the majority is unlawful.

My vote has been snuffed out several times in my life, just didn't pan out for who I voted for, it happens. Anyone got some wisdom, I'm very fatigued.

In a sense they're right. Their votes WILL be rendered almost useless but not because they are minorities, because they are democrats in Republican states.

Almost no one supports Gerrymandering but it is the law of the land and both sides do it.

SCOTUS simply ruled that the Equal Protections Clause means you can't give one specific group of people an exemption from law (in this case gerrymandering) because of their race and not give that exemption to everyone and therefore Section 2 of the VRA was in violation of the EPC. They reminded us that as long as you are discriminating against someone based on the political views and not their skin color, that is still completely legal under our current laws.

Long story short...

Because Black people were once oppressed, they needed representation via Majority Minority districts so that they could supposedly elect black candidates. Democrats used VRA 2 as the mechanism to get more black districts.

But that goes against the constitution because there can be no race based laws that disadvantage another race.

So unless you specifically say you are making district(s) because of race, or it is so blatant otherwise, it is a purely political machination to gerrymander for political gain. Thus, the Judiciary has no role in overriding another co-equal branch.

Or something like that. I may be a little off in my telling.

I understand there is a delay, and any real-time reactions from actual constituents within the district are probably unheard of for right now, I wonder if there is anyway to actually hear what people think in these districts they claim are being marginalized.

Ya know I keep trying to come up with a devils advocate thing, and I just can't. I know some arguments against a truly even playing field is that some folks can't just pick up and move to another state where their vote weighs more, or that people shouldn't have to leave their home just for their vote to count, but every time I try to say that and believe it, it doesn't work. Every attempt to "fix" that, is just an artificial way or creating an opportunity, that if nurtured, can create victories for any party that fosters it's creation.

It was allegedly mean to ensure representation by race by torturously crafting districts around race demographics to ensure the outcome is extremely biased towards a candidate from a specific race. It presumes general racial solidarity and bias in the electorate. It also was used to corral voters of that race mostly into a few token districts so they had little to no effect or influence on races in other neighboring districts. The problem was these manipulations were all explicitly on the basis of race, and it affected a voters choices if not their ability to vote, and led to racial tokenism which arguably limited voter influence on broader election outcomes via manipulation. The court found this was a harm or could be used to harm the voter by making their vote effectively irrelevant on the basis of race and I suppose equal protection doesn't allow for race as a criterion to district.

This makes perfect sense to me, it must be a frustrating thing to think your vote may not carry much weight, it really must be. Know where else I feel weight? My check twice a month, but not much of it after taxes to pay for every damn thing that someone else in another state deemed worthwhile to spend it on and didn't ask me about it or create a special category for me.

If blacks voted 90% for republicans then every southern GOP government would be carving out black districts. So to me that screams that it is politically motivated to get rid of their districts, not racially motivated.

And scotus agrees.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It was allegedly mean to ensure representation by race by torturously crafting districts around race demographics to ensure the outcome is extremely biased towards a candidate from a specific race. It presumes general racial solidarity and bias in the electorate. It also was used to corral voters of that race mostly into a few token districts so they had little to no effect or influence on races in other neighboring districts. The problem was these manipulations were all explicitly on the basis of race, and it affected a voters choices if not their ability to vote, and led to racial tokenism which arguably limited voter influence on broader election outcomes via manipulation. The court found this was a harm or could be used to harm the voter by making their vote effectively irrelevant on the basis of race and I suppose equal protection doesn't allow for race as a criterion to district.

---

It was a way for Democrats to FORCE red states to make districts that would vote to elect democrat candidates. That is all it was.

Today I learned that Gerrymandering is named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry who approved a district that was drawn like a salamander. His name was pronounced "Gary" so it should be a hard G sound not the J.

Bondag said:

---

Today I learned that Gerrymandering is named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry who approved a district that was drawn like a salamander. His name was pronounced "Gary" so it should be a hard G sound not the J.

---

Look at these old "gary"manders of Dallas.. Woof!

There's a lot of good contenders, but I think TX-18 from 1992 might be the worst district ever drawn. With TX-30 as a close second. pic.twitter.com/W01RuQ0BF8

— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 1, 2026

CaptTex said:

---

So how does this restrict peoples voting rights?

---

It doesn't.

will25u said:

---

Bondag said:

---

Today I learned that Gerrymandering is named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry who approved a district that was drawn like a salamander. His name was pronounced "Gary" so it should be a hard G sound not the J.

---

Look at these old "gary"manders of Dallas.. Woof!

There's a lot of good contenders, but I think TX-18 from 1992 might be the worst district ever drawn. With TX-30 as a close second. pic.twitter.com/W01RuQ0BF8

— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 1, 2026

---

The 1992 Texas congressional and state districts were drawn by the Texas Legislature (controlled by Democrats) following the 1990 census, specifically focusing on creating new Hispanic and African American-majority districts, while federal courts were heavily involved in finalizing state Senate plans. State Senator Eddie Bernice Johnson chaired the redistricting subcommittee

schmellba99 said:

---

CaptTex said:

---

So how does this restrict peoples voting rights?

---

It doesn't.

---

If you are a republican in New England you cannot elect a representative.

will25u said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It was allegedly mean to ensure representation by race by torturously crafting districts around race demographics to ensure the outcome is extremely biased towards a candidate from a specific race. It presumes general racial solidarity and bias in the electorate. It also was used to corral voters of that race mostly into a few token districts so they had little to no effect or influence on races in other neighboring districts. The problem was these manipulations were all explicitly on the basis of race, and it affected a voters choices if not their ability to vote, and led to racial tokenism which arguably limited voter influence on broader election outcomes via manipulation. The court found this was a harm or could be used to harm the voter by making their vote effectively irrelevant on the basis of race and I suppose equal protection doesn't allow for race as a criterion to district.

---

It was a way for Democrats to FORCE red states to make districts that would vote to elect democrat candidates. That is all it was.

---

Meanwhile.....



Over 40% of the states in blue vote republican. But the districts are structured in a way that there is 0% republican representation. Illinois is the same way - out of the ~15 districts, only something like 2 are republican even though there is a much higher percentage of the state that votes republican.

This is wholly a function of the left screaming "do as I say, not as I do!"

Redistricting, if done correctly, essentially chops areas up enough that percentage wise, they will never be anything except what that group whats them to be correct? I have zero experience with this stuff.

Then your best hope is local government I suppose. Depending on what industry everyone works in, I work in utilities, these small towns and industries are flush with what anyone would consider conservative people.

Bondag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CaptTex said:

---

So how does this restrict peoples voting rights?

---

It doesn't.

---

If you are a republican in New England you cannot elect a representative.

---

And yet they still have voting rights.

Representation =/= Voting Rights

CaptTex said:

---

Redistricting, if done correctly, essentially chops areas up enough that percentage wise, they will never be anything except what that group whats them to be correct? I have zero experience with this stuff.

---

Yes, that's correct. The "goal" is to create a range that will not be impacted by electorate "mood swings". A SAFE district is most likely +20 (60/40 split) but could go down to +16 (58/42 split) to avoid a flip during those 6 or 7 point shifts during mid-term elections.

Florida registration is something like +7 Republican with about 10% Independant/Other therefore it's goal is to create districts that are at minimum +17.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says skin color has anything to do with proper representation in government.

There is also nothing in the Constitution about religion or party affiliation factoring into representation.

As far as I ever cared, districts were purely a state concern.

My vote never mattered when I lived in Dallas and still wouldn't if I still lived there. It's about to not matter even more when we move out of state.

That's what happens when you live in an area where the majority of people are of a different political persuasion. Blacks can now coexist on the same playing field as the rest of us. Welcome to the game.

Determine your spread, and create safeties against it. Not a bad racket.

I got a weird idea.

If you're a politician, come up with a platform and sincere desire to make life better for EVERYONE in your district (and however it lays) as your first priority instead of simply trying to get elected and then stay in office for the rest of your life. Appeal to everyone regardless of color etc.



Yea, never mind that won't work. The lust for power and personal riches from being in office is too strong.

They can be a state concern as long as the situation is organic, any artificial attempt to create opportunity to influence things I think quickly boils over out of the state. Much the same way a group of children cant agree on something and someone inevitably ends up running to an adult for the "final say".

This was and is unavoidable since a great many people are running around calling people fascists and nazis. I witnessed a conversation between a more left leaning person and someone who really isn't very political at all. In this conversation it was stated the woman and man who were shot in Minnesota represents executions akin to nazi Germany. While the other person stated the Waco massacre is a better example of actual executions by our own federal government, when they had every chance to avoid that. Granted I thought that the Waco example was better if you are looking for something to call an execution, it wasn't received well by the other person.

The point I'm trying to make with that paragraph is that too many people are equating people putting themselves in bad situations as right and just since they believe something, and because they believe something is the same thing as any resistance movement or a righteous crusade against a modern reich. When you have those kinds of people whole heartedly believing they are fighting some tyrannical government, more of this mess occurs and starts falling outside the lines of normal behavior, such as leaving things to states. Which is always seen as a threat, because if whatever someone dreams isn't universal, then they have to sit there and be happy with it just applying to themselves which they don't like.

Our Constitution was built upon the idea that people in a given local have their own concerns that are focused on that region (correct me if I am wrong). Your district should reflect the concerns of your locality and not your race. Sometimes those two (locality and race) overlap and sometimes politics forces the locality to be distorted in such a way to make it a matter of race. IMHO SCOTUS ruled that the latter was unacceptable.