Theoretically, no.Should immutable characteristics or demographics ever be used to form district boundaries? Should we have a district consisting of just senior citizens?
Total population / # House Reps = voters per district. Divvy up the districts anyway you want ensuring each district has the same number of voters.
Now it’s up to voting interests to mobilize and educate their blocks in each district. Current election participation is so low that any reasonably large block could win.
If the actual majority interest wins with full participation then we’re talking about an extremely well educated and active electorate. Sounds propitious for all concerned.
Provable intent to discriminate is the appropriate standard. Disparate impact is not the standard and is a standard courts are woefully incapable of applying. There are scores of reasons for that besides intentional discrimination.
Intent to discriminate can be proven with circumstantial evidence.
It seems to me that proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a law or policy has negative discriminatory outcomes for a disadvantaged group is a fairly high hurdle. When achieved, that law or policy ought to be repealed or amended.
It seems to me that proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a law or policy that has proven racially discriminatory outcomes for a disadvantaged group and was intentionally designed to do so, and it's all hunky dory if you can't prove intent rather than unexpected negative outcomes, is like a 21 foot pole vault. Virtually impossible to get that law or policy repealed or amended, unless its designers were so stupid as to record the discriminatory intent via an archived "paper" trail, such as email exchanges saying "if we do this, we will get those bastards!".
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard. The standard is by a preponderance of evidence. Is Discrimination more likely than not? 50.1 %
thanks CO.H, for that correction! Sorry that I messed that part up.
Thinking from the point of view if a theoretical lawmaker who wanted to discriminate vs. a certain group, I would now feel empowered to do so now, as long as I was able make sure to never have my intentions documented. That's seems potentially problematic.
As to what should drive redistricting, I am thinking only population and proximity, which is why I like the idea of a computer program with no inputs on race or anything else, just population density and location. District too populated? Shed off a precinct in closest proximity to a neighboring one that is underpopulated. A computer iterates this 1,000 times in milliseconds and you have balanced and contiguous districts, not some goofy cigar shaped or dumbbell shaped gerrymandered mess.
PS, @co-hoosier
Did you buy the delta trike?
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
thanks CO.H, for that correction! Sorry that I messed that part up.
Thinking from the point of view if a theoretical lawmaker who wanted to discriminate vs. a certain group, I would now feel empowered to do so now, as long as I was able make sure to never have my intentions documented. That's seems potentially problematic.
As to what should drive redistricting, I am thinking only population and proximity, which is why I like the idea of a computer program with no inputs on race or anything else, just population density and location. District too populated? Shed off a precinct in closest proximity to a neighboring one that is underpopulated. A computer iterates this 1,000 times in milliseconds and you have balanced and contiguous districts, not some goofy cigar shaped or dumbbell shaped gerrymandered mess.
PS, @co-hoosier
Did you buy the delta trike?
NOBODY gets it wrong more than Shooter!!!
You'll still see a lot of litigation because of this. Especially since black people vote Dem in the high 80% low 90% range. Gerrymandering is going to go on, and Republicans are going to do it based on Dem voting patterns that will also obviously end up affecting a large proportion of black voters in that state, and they're going to be called racists because of it.Provable intent to discriminate is the appropriate standard. Disparate impact is not the standard and is a standard courts are woefully incapable of applying. There are scores of reasons for that besides intentional discrimination.
Intent to discriminate can be proven with circumstantial evidence.
We just need to end all gerrymandering, period. Turn it over to AI.
Did you buy the delta trike?
Yes. Hard to get used to not being able to lean on turns. Otherwise fine.
I think black specific districts that look like a snake will go away and things like compactness, community of interests sl would need to support one.
thanks CO.H, for that correction! Sorry that I messed that part up.
Thinking from the point of view if a theoretical lawmaker who wanted to discriminate vs. a certain group, I would now feel empowered to do so now, as long as I was able make sure to never have my intentions documented. That's seems potentially problematic.
As to what should drive redistricting, I am thinking only population and proximity, which is why I like the idea of a computer program with no inputs on race or anything else, just population density and location. District too populated? Shed off a precinct in closest proximity to a neighboring one that is underpopulated. A computer iterates this 1,000 times in milliseconds and you have balanced and contiguous districts, not some goofy cigar shaped or dumbbell shaped gerrymandered mess.
PS, @co-hoosier
Did you buy the delta trike?
NOBODY gets it wrong more than Shooter!!!
Did you change your name to "Nobody"?
thanks CO.H, for that correction! Sorry that I messed that part up.
Thinking from the point of view if a theoretical lawmaker who wanted to discriminate vs. a certain group, I would now feel empowered to do so now, as long as I was able make sure to never have my intentions documented. That's seems potentially problematic.
As to what should drive redistricting, I am thinking only population and proximity, which is why I like the idea of a computer program with no inputs on race or anything else, just population density and location. District too populated? Shed off a precinct in closest proximity to a neighboring one that is underpopulated. A computer iterates this 1,000 times in milliseconds and you have balanced and contiguous districts, not some goofy cigar shaped or dumbbell shaped gerrymandered mess.
PS, @co-hoosier
Did you buy the delta trike?
NOBODY gets it wrong more than Shooter!!!
Did you change your name to "Nobody"?
What do you think of Shooter’s post?
One upshot of this ruling is it will set off a mad redistricting scramble that will make this years fun and games look like fun and games.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/04/the-supreme-courts-callais-decision-midterms-2028.html
This is devolving into gladiator fights with no rules and no referees. The audience will watch to see who has the least principles, most willing to abuse the system.
@co-hoosier look at the 1982 addition to VRA signed by radical leftist Reagan where it specifically states outcome was all that mattered, intent was all that was needed.
How do you prove intent if no one ever says the quiet part out loud?
@co-hoosier look at the 1982 addition to VRA signed by radical leftist Reagan where it specifically states outcome was all that mattered, intent was all that was needed.
How do you prove intent if no one ever says the quiet part out loud?
1. Districts should have the fewest amount of county splits as possible
2. If the county has to be split then townships should remain intact
3. Districts should be as compact as possible
4. Those should be the only rules…unless you approve of gerrymandering
One upshot of this ruling is it will set off a mad redistricting scramble that will make this years fun and games look like fun and games.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/04/the-supreme-courts-callais-decision-midterms-2028.html
https://twitter.com/byelin/status/2049584487374164068