what I think the purpose of the vra districts

[freepcrusher]

is to give minorities fair representation in areas where there is evidence of racial polarization. An non-vra map of Alabama could merit a 7-0 Delegation. But a VRA district allocates a special district for the minorities in the central and western part of the state.

[Хahar 🤔]

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

Or machine areas like New Jersey. I'm not sure both Payne and Sires would win under a Democratic-drawn non-VRA map.

[Torie]

That assumes that the political climate would still cause blacks and Hispanics to be screwed if left to its own devices. I tend to think that assumption at this point is errant. In general, it is in the Pubbie's interest to give minorities their CD's in any event. And as for white Dems (who would in the abstract benefit from spreading the minorities around to help elect a host of white Dems), they are just too dependent on the goodwill of minorities these days to ever go there I would think.

So the VRA in my opinion should be dumped. It's time.

[timothyinMD]

is to give minorities fair representation in areas where there is evidence of racial polarization. An non-vra map of Alabama could merit a 7-0 Delegation. But a VRA district allocates a special district for the minorities in the central and western part of the state.

The 60s are long gone.  We don't need VRA imposed gerrymandering anymore.

Dems love it because they get seats where else they'd never win.  Yet gerrymandering Massachusetts to keep Republicans out of office is a-OK

[muon2]

That assumes that the political climate would still cause blacks and Hispanics to be screwed if left to its own devices. I tend to think that assumption at this point is errant. In general, it is in the Pubbie's interest to give minorities their CD's in any event. And as for white Dems (who would in the abstract benefit from spreading the minorities around to help elect a host of white Dems), they are just too dependent on the goodwill of minorities these days to ever go there I would think.

So the VRA in my opinion should be dumped. It's time.

I just don't see how to dump it. The Congress couldn't get rid of section 5 a few years ago when the VRA was reauthorized. That part was clearly out-of-date with preclearance counties in areas that made little sense today. If that couldn't happen, how could it reform section 2 with the meat of the minority district requirements?

[Torie]

That assumes that the political climate would still cause blacks and Hispanics to be screwed if left to its own devices. I tend to think that assumption at this point is errant. In general, it is in the Pubbie's interest to give minorities their CD's in any event. And as for white Dems (who would in the abstract benefit from spreading the minorities around to help elect a host of white Dems), they are just too dependent on the goodwill of minorities these days to ever go there I would think.

So the VRA in my opinion should be dumped. It's time.

I just don't see how to dump it. The Congress couldn't get rid of section 5 a few years ago when the VRA was reauthorized. That part was clearly out-of-date with preclearance counties in areas that made little sense today. If that couldn't happen, how could it reform section 2 with the meat of the minority district requirements?

Correct, it won't be dumped. Read above. The Pubs love it, the minorities love it, and that checkmates white Dems. End of story. But it should be dumped. My post was about the "should" thing.

SCOTUS can cut back its reach though.

[Guderian]

is to give minorities fair representation in areas where there is evidence of racial polarization. An non-vra map of Alabama could merit a 7-0 Delegation. But a VRA district allocates a special district for the minorities in the central and western part of the state.

It's unlikely that Republicans could draw a non-VRA map in Alabama that would ever deliver a 7-0 delegation. As recently as 2009, Alabama was 4-3 with one safe black seat and two Blue Dogs, so any attempt at 7-0 map would backfire and result in more Bobby Brights being elected. Like Torie pointed out, southern Republicans usually love the VRA requirements. VRA creates vote sink districts that make it really, really hard for white southern Democrats to get elected. What's ironic about the whole thing is that this way VRA actually preserves permanent racial polarization in the South.

[muon2]

That assumes that the political climate would still cause blacks and Hispanics to be screwed if left to its own devices. I tend to think that assumption at this point is errant. In general, it is in the Pubbie's interest to give minorities their CD's in any event. And as for white Dems (who would in the abstract benefit from spreading the minorities around to help elect a host of white Dems), they are just too dependent on the goodwill of minorities these days to ever go there I would think.

So the VRA in my opinion should be dumped. It's time.

I just don't see how to dump it. The Congress couldn't get rid of section 5 a few years ago when the VRA was reauthorized. That part was clearly out-of-date with preclearance counties in areas that made little sense today. If that couldn't happen, how could it reform section 2 with the meat of the minority district requirements?

Correct, it won't be dumped. Read above. The Pubs love it, the minorities love it, and that checkmates white Dems. End of story. But it should be dumped. My post was about the "should" thing.

SCOTUS can cut back its reach though.

I suspect that SCOTUS can at best nibble. It seems hard to get around the broad grant of congressional power in the 15th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Meeker]

is to give minorities fair representation in areas where there is evidence of racial polarization. An non-vra map of Alabama could merit a 7-0 Delegation. But a VRA district allocates a special district for the minorities in the central and western part of the state.

I see someone was paying attention in history class today!

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

I think the VRA should be retained but maybe the 50.1 percent plus Voting Age Population is not as necesssary as in the past.

[muon2]

I think the VRA should be retained but maybe the 50.1 percent plus Voting Age Population is not as necesssary as in the past.

Actually, the 50%+1 VAP in a geographically compact area is just one prong of the Gingles test to see whether an area is covered by the VRA. The court didn't explicitly say that such a district then had to be drawn. The presumption is that a district drawn at 50%+1 would survive a court challenge, but Democrats will be arguing this decade that Blacks can elect candidates of choice in certain jurisdictions with less than 50% VAP, even though a 50% district could be drawn.