Supreme Court throws Texas elections into disarray over district maps dispute

[PDH]

Politics is not held in very high regard here.  As I have mentioned many times our best and brightest do not want political careers so it gets filled by mediocrities with massive egos.  The real mystery is why the rest of the country keeps putting Texas politicians in positions of authority on a national level.  I mean how stupid are you guys?

As if your system differs from the national one...

[Valmy]

As if your system differs from the national one...

Well you have a good point there

But I mean a populist distrust of politicians is a tradition that goes back to the days Texans used to elect notorious gunfighters to important offices.

[grumbler]

Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.

Some of America does.  For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan.  The political "spoils system" mentality that Britain managed to strangle in its crib is alive and quite well in most of the US.  Redistricting is seen in those places as just a part of the spoils.

The court's blundering doesn't help; that simply exposes the court system to charges of partisan bias, since the court has no more interest in logical redistricting than the legislature.

[dps]

Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.

Some of America does.  For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan.  The political "spoils system" mentality that Britain managed to strangle in its crib is alive and quite well in most of the US.  Redistricting is seen in those places as just a part of the spoils.

The court's blundering doesn't help; that simply exposes the court system to charges of partisan bias, since the court has no more interest in logical redistricting than the legislature.

The federal courst have pretty consistantly held (for the last 40-50 years at least) that congressional districts have to be quite close to equal in population.  They have generally not touched the question of gerrymandering along partisan lines.  They have, however, been clear that districts can't be drawn along racial lines so as to artificially diminish the voting power of minorities.  They haven't been at all clear as to whether districts can be drawn along racial lines so as to enhance the voting power of minorities.

[grumbler]

The federal courst have pretty consistantly held (for the last 40-50 years at least) that congressional districts have to be quite close to equal in population.  They have generally not touched the question of gerrymandering along partisan lines.  They have, however, been clear that districts can't be drawn along racial lines so as to artificially diminish the voting power of minorities.  They haven't been at all clear as to whether districts can be drawn along racial lines so as to enhance the voting power of minorities.

I understand that the courts hold that a man's vote doesn't count unless he gets to vote for one of "his kind," and that no one votes for anything other than "his kind," but I think that is patently stupid.  There is no such thing as a "racial line" and all the attempts to gerrymander congressional districts to ensure the right mix of "races" get elected simply brings the judiciary into disrepute.

Sure, there are racists who really believe that races exist, but they shouldn't be sitting on the Federal bench.

[dps]

The federal courst have pretty consistantly held (for the last 40-50 years at least) that congressional districts have to be quite close to equal in population.  They have generally not touched the question of gerrymandering along partisan lines.  They have, however, been clear that districts can't be drawn along racial lines so as to artificially diminish the voting power of minorities.  They haven't been at all clear as to whether districts can be drawn along racial lines so as to enhance the voting power of minorities.

I understand that the courts hold that a man's vote doesn't count unless he gets to vote for one of "his kind," and that no one votes for anything other than "his kind," but I think that is patently stupid.  There is no such thing as a "racial line" and all the attempts to gerrymander congressional districts to ensure the right mix of "races" get elected simply brings the judiciary into disrepute.

Sure, there are racists who really believe that races exist, but they shouldn't be sitting on the Federal bench.

People who don't believe that in the past, voting districts have been drawn to deliberately dilute the voting power of minorities, particularly blacks, probably shouldn't be allowed to teach school and mold young minds.

Granted, I agree that it would be best if district boundaries were drawn without taking race into account at all.

[Admiral Yi]

I would have thought that during Jim Crow racial gerrymandering to suppress black representation was redundant.  Then with the passage of the Civil Rights Act southern states at least had to get their districting plans okayed.  So I'm not sure when it could have taken place.

[KRonn]

Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.

Some of America does.  For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan.  The political "spoils system" mentality that Britain managed to strangle in its crib is alive and quite well in most of the US.  Redistricting is seen in those places as just a part of the spoils.

The court's blundering doesn't help; that simply exposes the court system to charges of partisan bias, since the court has no more interest in logical redistricting than the legislature.

    Too bad it's come to this.

[grumbler]

People who don't believe that in the past, voting districts have been drawn to deliberately dilute the voting power of minorities, particularly blacks, probably shouldn't be allowed to teach school and mold young minds.

Is that straw I smell?

Granted, I agree that it would be best if district boundaries were drawn without taking race into account at all.

You really can't take subjectives into account at all.  "Race" is a social construct, like "civic-mindedness."  It makes as much sense, logically, to gerrymander for "civic-mindedness" as it does for "race."

[DGuller]

I have a sideline question:  is social construct theory of race widely accepted, and if it is, in what way is it different from a not social construct theory?  The more I see grumbler (and only grumbler AFAIK) using "social construct", the more I'm confused about what distinction it is supposed to draw.

[Razgovory]

I have a sideline question:  is social construct theory of race widely accepted, and if it is, in what way is it different from a not social construct theory?  The more I see grumbler (and only grumbler AFAIK) using "social construct", the more I'm confused about what distinction it is supposed to draw.

Check yer PMs.

[dps]

I would have thought that during Jim Crow racial gerrymandering to suppress black representation was redundant.  Then with the passage of the Civil Rights Act southern states at least had to get their districting plans okayed.  So I'm not sure when it could have taken place.

You seem to be assuming that racial gerrymandering only happened in southern states that had Jim Crow laws.

You really can't take subjectives into account at all.  "Race" is a social construct, like "civic-mindedness."  It makes as much sense, logically, to gerrymander for "civic-mindedness" as it does for "race."

I'm sure everyone who has ever been discriminated against because of their race will be glad at race is just a social construct.

[grumbler]

I'm sure everyone who has ever been discriminated against because of their race will be glad at race is just a social construct.

They will probably feel like those who have ever been discriminated against because they are "working class" or an "ivory tower intellectual."  I'm not sure what "just a social construct" is supposed to imply.  Are you arguing that social constructs are imaginary? 

Racism certainly exists.  Races, per se, do not (as biological facts).  You cannot logically construct legal boundaries around a group of people based on any objective classification of them as "minorities" or "not minorities" or "black" and "white."  What about a person with a "black" parent and a "white" parent? Do they count as half a minority?  If they are "black" (as in the case, apparently, with Obama), what if they marry a "white" person and have kids?  Are the kids then also "black" because one parent (but also only one of four grandparents) was "black?"  How about someone with one "black" great-grandparent and seven "white" ones?  It should be pretty obvious how silly this gets if one believes that "race" exists as an actual, inheritable biological condition.  And if it doesn't so exist, then how can we create logical legal boundaries taking it into account?

This leaves out, of course, the absurdity of the assumption that the only way a "black" can get elected is by having an election district that is majority "black."  That's the kind of thinkig that results in the conclusion that Obama could only have gotten elected by cheating, because the US isn't majority-"black." 

[Valmy]

I'm sure everyone who has ever been discriminated against because of their race will be glad at race is just a social construct.

Nationality is just a social construct and that has meant it is ok for people to drop bombs on you.  Social constructs: no laughing matter.

[PDH]

Social construct does not mean "not real."  It means (in the case of race) that there is no biological basis for it, the reality is a part of the social/cultural fabric.

It is fictive in the sense that the processes over the past few centuries have created the distinctions between human races.  It is nonetheless still real as human race has real impact on members of the society, how they think, how that society makes laws, etc.

Now Grumbles said this all, but some people just ignore what he actually says at times because they like his Argument Clinic.