Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 04, 2015, 08:57:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  How would the VRA's redistricting implications play out with more minorities?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: How would the VRA's redistricting implications play out with more minorities?  (Read 1305 times)
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1725


View Profile
« on: July 08, 2011, 05:52:32 am »
Ignore

Suppose the US remained majority non-Hispanic white, but some states had a consistent majority of their voters as minorities. For example, suppose Mississippi's racial demographics were inverted, so blacks were now a majority and all four Congressional districts could compactly be drawn as majority-black. Would the VRA imply that they must be drawn this way? Or alternatively, if a compact white majority district could be drawn - given that whites are now a numerical minority within the state, would the VRA imply that that district must be created?

Would either of these answers change if the US as a whole was plurality non-Hispanic white instead? Plurality Hispanic? Plurality black? Majority black?


 
Logged

Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2838


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2011, 02:49:51 pm »
Ignore

That's a good question.

I have no idea.
Logged

minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2011, 02:54:15 pm »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9816


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2011, 11:52:30 am »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue

A state has no obligation to draw more VRA section 2 districts than would be required to achieve a rough proportionality compared to the voting age population (Johnson v De Grandy- 1994). If MS were 55% black, the state could draw only 2 black-majority districts and not be in violation of the VRA.
Logged

I'm on my road trip to the Pac NW. Red is an overnight stay; blue is a point of interest; cyan is a stop; green is just a drive through.

Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2838


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2011, 01:32:05 pm »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue

If this is true, that the VRA doesn't protect Whites, couldn't it face a possible legal challenge based on the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment?  The Constitution is colorblind.
Logged

Αλληλεγγύη
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34519
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2011, 08:27:19 am »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue

If this is true, that the VRA doesn't protect Whites, couldn't it face a possible legal challenge based on the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment?  The Constitution is colorblind.

Indeed, that seems pretty unfair. Still won't happen, though.
Logged

RIP Greece. RIP European Federalism.



"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favor."

Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones, ep. 5x09
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2838


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2011, 10:24:30 am »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue

If this is true, that the VRA doesn't protect Whites, couldn't it face a possible legal challenge based on the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment?  The Constitution is colorblind.

Indeed, that seems pretty unfair. Still won't happen, though.

What makes you say that?
Logged

minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2011, 11:53:55 am »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue

If this is true, that the VRA doesn't protect Whites, couldn't it face a possible legal challenge based on the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment?  The Constitution is colorblind.
The VRA's constitutionality is tested many times - and yeah, it remains contentious in legal circles, and it is likely that it will one day be struck. Though probably not without some kind of major demonstration that it is no longer  necessary.

e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062200771.html
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9816


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2011, 11:15:06 am »
Ignore

Whites are not a protected minority under the VRA. As to how Mississippi would have to be drawn... depends on communities of interest under the Gingles test. Tongue

If this is true, that the VRA doesn't protect Whites, couldn't it face a possible legal challenge based on the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment?  The Constitution is colorblind.
The VRA's constitutionality is tested many times - and yeah, it remains contentious in legal circles, and it is likely that it will one day be struck. Though probably not without some kind of major demonstration that it is no longer  necessary.

e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062200771.html

The contentious part is section 5 that requires certain jurisdictions to be "precleared". That was the subject of the suit in the article. As the opinion noted, it's based on old data and old voting patterns.

Section two applies to all states equally, and with the Gingles test it automatically can take new voting behavior and demographics into account. I don't think many observers find that part as troublesome.
Logged

I'm on my road trip to the Pac NW. Red is an overnight stay; blue is a point of interest; cyan is a stop; green is just a drive through.

minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2011, 10:29:40 am »
Ignore

The Gingles test is basically case law that says the law effectively self-annuls if conditions change. Makes you wonder why the Act still needs renewing by Congress. Grin
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines