TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2023
No one attempts to explain: Does the state of Louisianan currently have a racist congressional districting map?
According to this recent post by Kevin Drum, the answer would seem to be yes. Headline included, this is the way the Drumster's short post begins:
Louisiana ordered to redraw racist congressional map
Louisiana's latest redistricting map is so unfair to Black voters that even the hyper-conservative Fifth Circuit Court has agreed it's illegal...
According to Drum, Louisiana's latest map is unfair to black voters—so much so that it isn't merely racist, it's also illegal.
At this point, Drum links to a news report from The Guardian. According to that news report, the map in question "illegally disfranchises Black voters in the state."
Stating the obvious, the disenfranchisement of black voters—traditionally, the refusal to allow black citizens to vote—has a long, gruesome history in various regions and states. Obviously, it should be illegal to do some such thing—to make it impossible, or deliberately hard, for black citizens to vote.
Is that what's happening in Louisiana? Rather plainly, no. In what way, then, is the congressional map in question said to "disenfranchise" Louisiana's black voters? Like this report in the New York Times, the Guardian offers this explanation:
SAINATO (11/11/23): Black voters in Louisiana represent about one-third of the state’s population, but currently represent a majority in just one out of six congressional districts in the state.
Republicans have argued the current map is fair, with Democrats arguing the districts discriminate against Black voters in the state.
A lower court in June 2022 struck down Louisiana’s current congressional map. The court ruled that the map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered a new map to be drawn that includes a second congressional district with a majority of Black voters.
Roughly one third of Louisiana's population is black. But the map which has been rejected included only one majority black congressional district out of six in the state.
This is a very familiar formulation in cases of this type. The thinking seems to go like this:
If a state is one third black, one third of its congressional districts—in this case, two out of six—should be majority black. For today, our question would be this:
Is there a provision of the Voting Rights Act which makes some such declaration? Also, what's the constitutional principle which would lead to some such holding?
Our journalists rarely attempt to quote or describe the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act. It does seem clear that federal judges are operating on something like this idea:
The percentage of a state's population which is black should correspond to the percentage of congressional districts which are majority black.
That seems to be the basic idea. But what exactly does the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act actually say about this? Also, is it a good idea to form districts that way?
For ourselves, we aren't attracted to such types of race-based reasoning. That doesn't mean that federal judges aren't correctly applying the relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
That said, what are the relevant provisions of the VRA? What do those provisions actually say?
Our journalists rarely bother with such tedious matters. Meanwhile, our analysts tend to go straight to one of our tribe's favorite bombs.
We'll offer one final point, although our one point may have parts:
On the current Louisiana map, there is one (1) congressional district which has the traditional look of a "gerrymandered" district. We refer to the second congressional district, whose curious shape you can see just by clicking here.
That district has the traditional, serpentine shape of the classic "gerrymandered" district. And yes, it's the one majority black district on the rejected map!
By normal standards, that district was "gerrymandered" in order to make it majority black. It's even possible that a map with two (2) majority black districts would have two (2) weirdly shaped districts.
On the other hand:
According to the leading authority, that second district is 62.2% black. The Cook Partisan Voting Index rates the district as heavily Democratic—as D+25.
Those numbers suggest the possibility that Republican mapmakers stuffed an excessive number of black voters into that one serpentine district, thereby creating "wasted votes" and keeping surrounding districts more safely Republican. These are the slippery ways modern districts are formed.
Our one last final point comes from Katie Benner's report on this matter in the New York Times:
BENNER (11/11/23): Black voters in the state have traditionally supported Democrats; a second majority Black district could tip the scale in that party’s favor and shift the balance of power in Congress, where Republicans control the House by only a slim majority.
Using the current map in last year's elections, Louisiana sent five Republicans to the House and only one Democrat. Creating a second majority-black district might turn that 5-1 split to 4-2.
On the national level, advantage Democrats!
Machinations of this type breed cynicism among the electorate. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the joy of compact congressional districts?
Our nation's governmental and judicial systems are endlessly complex. The endless complexity may breed a desire for simplifications. Along comes a man on a white charger—a man who may look suspiciously like former president Donald J. Trump!
At any rate, what does the Voting Rights Act actually say about the "disenfranchisement" of black voters? Also, to what extent does the current judicial consensus represent a good idea?
For the record, we can teach this matter flat or we can teach it round. For whatever reason, our upper-end journalists rarely seem inclined to try to teach it at all!
Same thing with the Voter ID. No one knows logistically how the state is going to find each and every eligible voter and provide them a free government-issued ID. Nor has it been explained how any of this will be paid for. Journalism has been dead for years. Swallowed-up by hedge-funds, in support of the plutocracy.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly did hedge funds swallow up journalism?
DeleteAside from state driver licenses and federal passports, states offer a State ID (which can be upgraded to a Real ID) through their DMVs, you can apply online and receive it in the mail.
DeleteHow easy is that to do if you are visually impaired, cannot drive, or cannot take time off work to visit the DMV if your requested id doesn’t show up?
DeleteIf it's easy for me to get an ID, it's easy for everyone. That's just science.
DeleteI’m able to vote but unable to get an ID. I make sense.
Delete9:29,
DeleteNo worries. Your vote is a Constitutionally protected right. Getting an ID isn't. Carry on.
Voter registration seems to be a requirement too.
DeleteYes, Cecelia. There's also the matter of providing adequate distribution of polling places, and once you get through the line, ballots. And then there's the little matter of magat harassment and physical intimidation of poll workers.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:14pm, any morons being intimidating can be arrested.
Delete0n the other hand, they don’t characterize a “shadow campaign to save the election” as “shadow” for nothing.
oh Christ, I triggered your persecution complex again. Sorry, cec,
Deleteyou are such a glib bitch, Cec. We just had an election and in my state there were districts where the entire group of experienced election workers just quit because of the harassment and intimidation from your magat friends. Don't fucking be so glib and cavalier about it.
Delete"any morons being intimidating can be arrested."
DeleteThey're already going after Trump. May as well try to put the rest of the party in prison with him.
Election observers should harass and intimidate electoral fraudsters. That's the whole point.
Delete1:45, hey, shit for brains, is that really the whole point? Have you checked with your local FBI office to confirm that, magat fuckface?
Delete"This is a very familiar formulation in cases of this type. The thinking seems to go like this:
ReplyDeleteIf a state is one third black, one third of its congressional districts—in this case, two out of six—should be majority black."
Democrats for segregation!
Somerby has no idea what the basis of the judicial decision was. He would need to actually read the decision to know. The formulation Somerby quotes is how the newspaper explained the unfairness of the redistricting plan, NOT how the court decided the case or how the Voting Rights Act was violated making the plan "illegal."
DeleteSomerby is as lazy as the journalists he criticizes. When he says "the thinking seems to go like this" he is hypothesizing, not describing reality, and he does this because he is too lazy to look up what the court's thinking actually was.
Democrats do not favor segregation. We favor fairness. @3:27 does not look at how the district lines were drawn, which might make it clearer that black voters who live in an area that might form a second majority black district were instead assigned to a majority white district where there votes are diluted. That isn't "desegregation" because no one's actual residence is changed by districting plans, only their ability to elect someone who will best represent their interests. It is a dishonest remark.
DeleteIn an integrated environment, Corby, if X represent one third of the electorate, X should get exactly zero majority districts.
If you want X to have one third majority districts, then you want segregation.
But hey, it's nothing new: the democrat party has always been for segregation.
People are not evenly distributed. If people are a majority in a region, the district lines should not be deliberately drawn to exclude them from being a majority. Segregation would be a district in which all voters are required by law (not preference) to be white or black.
DeleteI know you addressed Corby, but Corby went to Iceland to watch the eruption.
DeleteDo you want one third of majority districts for X, Corby, or do you want zero majority districts for X? It's a simple question.
DeleteThis is Somerby repeating his brain dead ignorance about how congressional districts are determined, an effort that whitewashes historical racism like redlining.
DeleteWhat percent of the state's citizens are antisemites? That same percent of the congressional delegation should be antisemites. I am Corby, commenting from Iceland.
DeleteIf you really want to know what a plaintiff must prove to establish a "vote dilution" claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
ReplyDelete"To succeed in proving a Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] vote dilution claim, plaintiffs must
first satisfy three preconditions. 'First, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.' A district is reasonably configured when it complies 'with traditional districting criteria, such as being contiguous and reasonably compact.' Second, the minority group must be politically cohesive.
Third, the white majority must be shown to vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority-preferred candidate. If a plaintiff fails to establish
any one of these three preconditions, a court need not consider the other two, leaving the plaintiff with no remedy.
"Once these three threshold conditions are established, a plaintiff then must 'show, under the totality of the circumstances, that the political process is not equally open to minority votes,' causing a Section 2 violation.
Courts consider what are sometimes called the Zimmer factors to guide this portion of the analysis. Courts must determine whether plaintiffs have an equal opportunity in the voting process to elect their preferred candidate under the challenged districting map. If the answer is no, there likely is a Section 2 violation." Robinson v. Ardoin, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30039 (5th Cir. 11/10/23) (citations omitted).
Thank you for this information.
DeleteSomerby calls this information tedious, but I can see how it would be complicated to explain this in the relatively short space of a news article that has other things to mention too.
Delete"On the national level, advantage Democrats!
ReplyDeleteMachinations of this type breed cynicism among the electorate. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the joy of compact congressional districts? "
Republicans have gerrymandered districts to disadvantage black voters (who also tend to be Democratic voters). Somerby says that the unfairness of disadvantaging a minority group such as black voters is a "machination" by the Democrats, ignoring that it was the machination of the Republicans that caused the violation of the law and deprived black voters of representation (as determined by the court). Somerby seems to imply that Democrats only challenge such maps out of self-interest and not out of a concern for social justice and to uphold democracy. I can that a form of cynicism because it implies that Democrats are only motivated by winning, just like the Republicans have shown themselves to be over and over. As a Democrat, I have seen situations where their decisions and actions are not solely motivated by political advantage. Further, I do not understand how anyone can read such a statement and be confused about whether Somerby is a liberal or not. Liberals would never have written this essay, calling Democrats politically motivated for challenging redistricting that denies black voters a second majority black district. Democrats have been the defenders of civil rights and are the only party with a plank in the their platform concerning social justice.
Somerby similarly opposes school desegregation on the basis of a comparison between minority population and school representation. He pretends it is for technical reasons, just as he does today, but he has no interest in improving minority education by including them in schools with better resources, which is what happens when schools desegregate. Just as today, he shows no interest in black voters gaining political clout by electing representatives who are interested in their needs and concerns. And that makes Somerby not liberal, so not liberal as to be supportive of institutional racism embodied by discriminatory racial redistricting.
"Our nation's governmental and judicial systems are endlessly complex. The endless complexity may breed a desire for simplifications. Along comes a man on a white charger—a man who may look suspiciously like former president Donald J. Trump!"
ReplyDeleteWhat did Trump ever do (or even propose) to simplify the complexity of our judicial system? From what I can see, he has been using those complexities to his own benefit as he works the system to evade responsibility for the crimes he has committed.
Is Somerby suggesting that Trump is being charged on technicalities? Is an insurrection a technicality that arises from some judge applying a complicated law unfairly to him and the violent reprobates that have already been convicted of violent crimes on 1/6? Is Somerby's argument actually that (1) the Voting Rights Act might be complicated, therefore (2) Trump is innocent? Does Somerby think anyone except his fanboys will buy that argument here?
Only an idiot could think Somerby is actually making these arguments.
DeleteI am an idiot.
Delete"At any rate, what does the Voting Rights Act actually say about the "disenfranchisement" of black voters? Also, to what extent does the current judicial consensus represent a good idea?"
ReplyDeleteWhat liberal argues against the Voting Rights Act? Somerby is earning his conservative meme-dropping stipend today, you betcha!
Anti-Semites are everywhere:
ReplyDelete100 State Dept Officials Sign Dissent Memo Saying Biden "Complicit In Genocide" In Gaza
Obviously they simply envy Jews being so successful and non-violent.
Biden’s first taste of Deep State.
DeleteAnd I’m sure he will vow to eradicate them like vermin, just like white knight Trump.
DeleteNo, he’ll fold like cardboard.
DeleteHe didn’t fold when Russia invaded Ukraine.
DeleteIf it were the deep state, it would've been on the front page of every government newspaper, endlessly repeated by every tv channel.
DeleteIs it?
Anonymices, this has been reported and the unelected eternal cabal of the experts and flunkies, patrons, and media riffraff has put the president and other elected leaders on notice.
DeleteSomerby seems to criticize journalists for not teaching the public about the Voting Rights Act: “That said, what are the relevant provisions of the VRA? What do those provisions actually say?
ReplyDeleteOur journalists rarely bother with such tedious matters.”
But, in the midst of “just asking questions”, and criticizing journalists, says this:
“it should be illegal to do some such thing—to make it impossible, or deliberately hard, for black citizens to vote.
Is that what's happening in Louisiana? Rather plainly, no.”
He seems to be certain about something here, seemingly without understanding that the voting rights act was amended a number of times, notably in 1982:
“Several of the amendments responded to judicial rulings with which Congress disagreed. In 1982, Congress amended the Act to overturn the Supreme Court case Mobile v. Bolden (1980), which held that the general prohibition of voting discrimination prescribed in Section 2 prohibited only purposeful discrimination. Congress responded by expanding Section 2 to explicitly ban any voting practice that had a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The creation of this "results test" shifted the majority of vote dilution litigation brought under the Act from preclearance lawsuits to Section 2 lawsuits.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
Also the Gingles case:
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornburg_v._Gingles
He also continues to formulate this just like mainstream journalists do:
“On the national level, advantage Democrats!
Machinations of this type breed cynicism among the electorate.”
This, instead of granting the ability of black voters to vote for their chosen candidates, is a framing that encourages partisan grousing. In other words, this type of framing encourages cynicism.
Women wear suspenders at the Ceremony of Innocence.
ReplyDelete