Apparently we have to lay this out for everyone.
Have you faggots heard of Affirmitive Racial Gerrymandering? Its what the faggots pushed in the past to try to provide minorities a chance to elect their own representation. People like Bernie sanders decided EQUALITY wasnt important, but doing whatever it took to get minorities the ability to vote in their own people was important. And it cost them seats by voluntarily stacking districts.
You faggots didnt care about it until you realized you played yourself and have lost the house.
Affirmative[edit]
Shaw v. Reno was a
United States Supreme Court case involving a claim that
North Carolina's 12th congressional district(pictured) was affirmatively racially gerrymandered.
While the Equal Protection Clause, along with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibit jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor racial groups. The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in
Shaw v. Reno (
Shaw I) (1993),
[22] holding that plaintiffs "may state a claim by alleging that [redistricting] legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification". The Supreme Court reasoned that these claims were cognizable because relying on race in redistricting "reinforces racial stereotypes and threatens to undermine our system of representative democracy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole".
[22]:649–650
[23]:620 Later opinions characterized the type of unconstitutional harm created by racial gerrymandering as an "expressive harm",
[11]:862 which law professors Richard Pildes and Richard Neimi have described as a harm "that results from the idea or attitudes expressed through a governmental action."
[24]
Subsequent cases further defined the counters of racial gerrymandering claims and how those claims relate to the Voting Rights Act. In
United States v. Hays(1996),
[25] the Supreme Court held that only those persons who reside in a challenged district may bring a racial gerrymandering claim.
[23]:623
[25]:743–744 In
Miller v. Johnson (1995),
[26] the Supreme Court held that a redistricting plan must be subjected to
strict scrutiny if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. The court defined "predominance" as meaning that the jurisdiction gave more priority to racial considerations than to traditional redistricting principles such as "compactness, contiguity, [and] respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests."
[23]:621
[26]:916 In determining whether racial considerations predominated over traditional redistricting principles, courts may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence of the jurisdiction's intent in drawing the district lines, and irregularly-shaped districts constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the jurisdiction relied predominately on race.
[11]:869 If a court concludes that racial considerations predominated, then a redistricting plan is considered a "racially gerrymandered" plan and must be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. In
Bush v. Vera (1996),
[27]:983 the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion assumed that compliance with Section 2 or Section 5 of the Act constituted compelling interests, and lower courts have treated these two interests as the only compelling interests that may justify the creation of racially gerrymandered districts.
[11]:877
In
Hunt v. Cromartie (1999), the Supreme Court approved a racially focused gerrymandering of a congressional district on the grounds that the definition was not pure racial gerrymandering but instead partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. With the increasing racial polarization of parties in the South in the U.S. as conservative whites move from the Democratic to the Republican Party, gerrymandering may become partisan and also achieve goals for ethnic representation.
Various examples of affirmative racial gerrymandering have emerged. When the state legislature considered representation for
Arizona's Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the
Hopi and
Navajo nations. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration for the
2nd congressional district that featured a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach the Hopi reservation to the rest of the district; the arrangement lasted until 2013. The
California state legislature created a
congressional district (2003-2013) that extended over a narrow coastal strip for several miles. It ensured that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than having portions of the coastal areas be split up into districts extending into the interior, with domination by inland concerns.
In the case of
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the
United States Supreme Court upheld on 28 June 2006, most of a Texas congressional map suggested in 2003 by former
United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and enacted by the state of Texas.
[28] The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared
one Congressional districtunconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority.