Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

What do you mean 2 black districts of louisiana?

 

As of May 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court has voided Louisiana's 2024 congressional map, which included two majority-Black districts,, likely forcing a redraw that will eliminate one, resulting in fewer Democratic-leaning seats. While the focus is often on removing the second district, redistricting negotiations are ongoing, with options including maintaining or altering the map that currently places New Orleans in a blue district.

Based on: 
 

Supreme Court Ruling: In April 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s electoral map was unconstitutionally drawn to create two Black-majority districts, a decision expected to boost Republican chances and reduce Democratic representation.

using the logic:

Yes, as of April/May 2026, Louisiana Republicans and a group of voters have successfully challenged the state’s congressional map containing two majority-Black districts, aiming to eliminate one of them. The Supreme Court ruled in April 2026 that the map—which was previously created to comply with the Voting Rights Act—unconstitutionally used race as the predominant factor.

So, you see, the once fair and representative maps that included majority black districts are racist because those are unfair to al the white people not in the majority black areas like New Orleans or Baton Rouge.  

So they need to make sure all the black people are split up and that they dont racially outweigh the rest of their district.  Because you know, splitting up two majority black metro areas between two districts is just so unheard of...

Basically: How to gaslight people into thinking harming black representation in congress by limiting majority black districts isnt racist, and they are actually the racist ones for drawing two majority black districts - in a state with 36% black people and 6 congressional districts.

[BeyondKnowledge]

My question is why? 

Why does the votes of any group supposed to matter more than any other group? I though it was "one man, one vote" or to modernize that for some "one person, one vote". 

Gathering a group within a voting district makes them stronger in that district. How exactly does that make them more powerful when they are isolated in their voting? Yes, their power is stronger in that district but weakened or eliminated overall because of less representatives listening to their opinion simply because they are not within that representatives district. 

I see it as a ploy of the Democrats to isolate one group to make them feel more powerful but that also limits their influence. This keeps the minorities happy on their new plantations, just as the Democrats have always tried to do. 

Mixing everybody together in voting districts is a good thing because it forces them to work together and not in isolated groups. They can keep their cultural differencs if they want but must learn to work together to make everyone's life better, not just some of them. 

There is only one race but many politicians need the people split to stay in power. It makes controlling the common people easier if they don't work together.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

 

Based on: 
 

using the logic:

So, you see, the once fair and representative maps that included majority black districts are racist because those are unfair to al the white people not in the majority black areas like New Orleans or Baton Rouge.  

So they need to make sure all the black people are split up and that they dont racially outweigh the rest of their district.  Because you know, splitting up two majority black metro areas between two districts is just so unheard of...

Basically: How to gaslight people into thinking harming black representation in congress by limiting majority black districts isnt racist, and they are actually the racist ones for drawing two majority black districts - in a state with 36% black people and 6 congressional districts.

The map was drawn based upon race that does indeed make it racist regardless of side and justice Clarence Thomas, an african-american judge, was one of the judges who voted in favor of doing away with this and also cited that the voting rights act had nothing to do with district mapping in the first place. What do you think about that?

[chr0naut]

The Democraps can't win unless they are cheating, changing the rules or scamming someone.

They are con artists and its obvious they have done a really good job conning the fucking morons who support them.

It's not like the Democrats have made exclusive use of those those underhanded, immoral and corrupt dealings:

Has there been significantly more criminal activity in Republican presidential administrations than Democratic ones over the past 50 years?

... looks like, yes.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

The map was drawn based upon race that does indeed make it racist regardless of side and justice Clarence Thomas, an african-american judge, was one of the judges who voted in favor of doing away with this and also cited that the voting rights act had nothing to do with district mapping in the first place. What do you think about that?

Based on what, a lower courts previous decision THAT TOLD THEM TO DO THIS TO MAKE IT FAIR TO BEGIN WITH? 

It was originally NOT racist FOR THE SAME reason. 

Louisiana's second majority-Black district was not considered legally "racist" or a "racial gerrymander" in early 2024 because it was enacted by the state legislature to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) following federal court orders. The map was created to address concerns that the previous map diluted Black voting power.

And...
 

Compliance with VRA: Following a US Supreme Court decision in 2023 regarding a similar case in Alabama, Louisiana was ordered to create a second majority-minority district to ensure Black voters could elect candidates of their choice, which was seen as a remedy against discrimination, not an act of it.

So one lower federal court told them "blacks were too diluted" in 2023 and to "draw a second district." 

Then our fucking travesty of a supreme court told them AGAIN in 2026 that their previously ordered redistricted maps actually made it unconstitutional and were now more racist.  

IMO it comes down to how left-leaning court decisions are ALWAYS wrong and right-leaning court decisions are ALWAYS right in the era of emboldened rural, poor, undereducated white people.

And Clarence Thomas has always been a tool. Now he's just one of several rebranded Heritage Foundation tools.

Too me, it's just more evidence the highest court is bias AF and shares the same veiled MAGA white christian nationalism that successfully turned PC against itself to kill all affirmative action and DEI, you know, for all of us poor discriminated against white people...  That still make 1 dollar to every 65 cents of a black person, just like an "apartheid state."

But this is okay to say, because our president has also normalized race baiting as part of taking down all social change that discrimated against recessive genetics.

And he also made it cool to never need to defend an outrageous statement. So the previous is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and everyone who disagrees is low IQ.

[govshill2]

The problem with Gerrymandering is, whenever they don't Gerrymander, it always looks like Gerrymandering. Go Figure THAT out!   

The TN case has chopped a Black majority District and is now called a racist move by opposers. Ironically however, that District has been represented by an elected Rep who is White and Jewish for many years! Go Figure.  

HewwMass-a-keela

[govshill2]

Based on what, a lower courts previous decision THAT TOLD THEM TO DO THIS TO MAKE IT FAIR TO BEGIN WITH? 

It was originally NOT racist FOR THE SAME reason. 

And...
 

So one lower federal court told them "blacks were too diluted" in 2023 and to "draw a second district." 

Then our fucking travesty of a supreme court told them AGAIN in 2026 that their previously ordered redistricted maps actually made it unconstitutional and were now more racist.  

IMO it comes down to how left-leaning court decisions are ALWAYS wrong and right-leaning court decisions are ALWAYS right in the era of emboldened rural, poor, undereducated white people.

And Clarence Thomas has always been a tool. Now he's just one of several rebranded Heritage Foundation tools.

Too me, it's just more evidence the highest court is bias AF and shares the same veiled MAGA white christian nationalism that successfully turned PC against itself to kill all affirmative action and DEI, you know, for all of us poor discriminated against white people...  That still make 1 dollar to every 65 cents of a black person, just like an "apartheid state."

But this is okay to say, because our president has also normalized race baiting as part of taking down all social change that discrimated against recessive genetics.

And he also made it cool to never need to defend an outrageous statement. So the previous is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and everyone who disagrees is low IQ.

Purposely excluding Whites from Districts favoring other Races is Unconstitutionally Racist. Now recalculate. 

[govshill2]

It's not like the Democrats have made exclusive use of those those underhanded, immoral and corrupt dealings:

Has there been significantly more criminal activity in Republican presidential administrations than Democratic ones over the past 50 years?

... looks like, yes.

Interesting bias as accepted. But where in that story is Gerrymandering addressed or correlated to crime? 

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Based on what, a lower courts previous decision THAT TOLD THEM TO DO THIS TO MAKE IT FAIR TO BEGIN WITH? 

It was originally NOT racist FOR THE SAME reason. 

And...
 

So one lower federal court told them "blacks were too diluted" in 2023 and to "draw a second district." 

Then our fucking travesty of a supreme court told them AGAIN in 2026 that their previously ordered redistricted maps actually made it unconstitutional and were now more racist.  

IMO it comes down to how left-leaning court decisions are ALWAYS wrong and right-leaning court decisions are ALWAYS right in the era of emboldened rural, poor, undereducated white people.

And Clarence Thomas has always been a tool. Now he's just one of several rebranded Heritage Foundation tools.

Too me, it's just more evidence the highest court is bias AF and shares the same veiled MAGA white christian nationalism that successfully turned PC against itself to kill all affirmative action and DEI, you know, for all of us poor discriminated against white people...  That still make 1 dollar to every 65 cents of a black person, just like an "apartheid state."

But this is okay to say, because our president has also normalized race baiting as part of taking down all social change that discrimated against recessive genetics.

And he also made it cool to never need to defend an outrageous statement. So the previous is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and everyone who disagrees is low IQ.

Ideo your prejudices are showing.




Also, the pay gap I believe you are referring to isn't taking into account people doing the same job. Which leads to another question and another question and another question and the more questions I ask the deeper into social programs it goes and undervalued property in black communities all leading to lower taxes for public schools which is why they are underrepresented in colleges which lead to the roles in the work force with higher pay that you believe there's a gap in when the real gap is the fact that these kids aren't applying themselves in public schools or to these colleges. Maybe we should get to the root of the problem instead of white man bad and instill in our children the importance of an education instead of a victim mentality and defeatism.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Yes, both sides have done this. But who invented and promoted "identity politics". The very idea that your looks matter more than who you are for how you are represented in government. 

As the song goes “If you can judge a wise man by the color of his skin, then mister you're a better man than I” Arrowsmith. Now who can truly say they can do this? Looks are only skin deep. Politics should not be based on looks. For some politicians, that is all the have to run on.