Law Supreme Court ruling on voter rights could destroy Democrats

[Limbo Pete]

Most states with dem governors and legislature control face too many legal hurdles to make it happen.

He's high on his own supply

 

[helltoupee]

Thanks for this stark reminder of why I almost never post in your threads.

White Whale is a Russian bot troll. He never replies to anything, he just spams divisive posts. I've never seen him reply even once to someone.

You are wasting your time trying to get his attention.

 

[Sinister]

White Whale is a Russian bot troll. He never replies to anything, he just spams divisive posts. I've never seen him reply even once to someone.

You are wasting your time trying to get his attention.

I honestly dont care if he replies to me or not. When I post I try to keep gues readers in mind more than who I'm talking to if In arguing.

 

[Alpha_T83]

No, I'm very much not missing the point. The VRA is necessary to ensure black voters have representation. It doesn't matter how hard California "counters" if the only way a black person in Louisiana can get a state house seat is... to be a republican.

Right I understand what the voter reform act is for. It prevents the Republicans from Gerrymandering due to the requirement of concentrating black voters in certain districts.

And I understand that once the Supreme Court strikes the VRA down (which they will) that the Republicans will be able to gerrymander more districts.

But the point is: If the republicans strike down the VRA and maximally gerrymander, the Democrats can counter and gerrymander away even more districts in Democrat states. The republicans only win if the Democrats don't gerrymander in retaliation, which I'm sure they will.

It's simply math: Democrat gerrymandering potential > Republican.

 

[avenue94]

Most Asians live either in Hawaii, which is unaffected by the issues Republicans care about, or metropoles, where Democrats flock to to go to college. I grew up with a lot of Koreans and they were mostly very conservative. I suspect this is pretty normal for the suburban and rural Asians.

Harris pulled in 2/3 of the Korean vote, with Koreans being among the most pro-democratic Asian subgroups even after Trump's gains.

Your feelings are plainly not supported by data. The reason Asian American voters trend liberal is because they like liberal economic policies and tend to see the GOP as more racist and anti-immigrant.

They’re just as bad because drawing districts along partisan lines every 10 years or whatever instead of fairly representing the populace as intended should not be tolerated. It’s attempted rigging and it is wrong. Democrat politicians only speak out when republicans do it. That they themselves don’t do it as blatantly and frequently doesn’t impress me all that much.

And before it gets lost, I have noted that they’re much better when it comes to protecting voter’s rights and trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. Republicans are waging a war against voting now, they’re clearly not interested in democracy anymore.

You didn't answer the question. What data do you have to support your claim that Democrats gerrymander as bad as the GOP? There's literal math to calculate this, depending on which method you favor.

 

[Cid]

What kind of backwards shithole is redrawing lines in 2025 for elections?

Your democracy is hundreds of years old and you still doing beginner shit...

Sad.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Right I understand what the voter reform act is for. It prevents the Republicans from Gerrymandering due to the requirement of concentrating black voters in certain districts.

And I understand that once the Supreme Court strikes the VRA down (which they will) that the Republicans will be able to gerrymander more districts.

But the point is: If the republicans strike down the VRA and maximally gerrymander, the Democrats can counter and gerrymander away even more districts in Democrat states. The republicans only win if the Democrats don't gerrymander in retaliation, which I'm sure they will.

It's simply math: Democrat gerrymandering potential > Republican.

It's not just simple math for a few reasons, not the least of which is that black voters reeeeally should not be left just hanging in the wind

 

[Alpha_T83]

It's not just simple math for a few reasons, not the least of which is that black voters reeeeally should not be left just hanging in the wind

Seems like a red herring to me.

The point is that the thread is suggesting that overturning the VRA will "destroy the Democrats" and I disagree. The Democrats can counter with their own gerrymandering, if they don't pussy out. And there is no such thing as "backfire proof gerrymandering". If the Republican support significantly declines in the 2026 midterms, it could be very bad for them.

 

[Kassitus]

Harris pulled in 2/3 of the Korean vote, with Koreans being among the most pro-democratic Asian subgroups even after Trump's gains.

Your feelings are plainly not supported by data. The reason Asian American voters trend liberal is because they like liberal economic policies and tend to see the GOP as more racist and anti-immigrant.

You didn't answer the question. What data do you have to support your claim that Democrats gerrymander as bad as the GOP? There's literal math to calculate this, depending on which method you favor.

Presumably those 2/3 would be the ones from Hawaii or metropoles. The other 1/3 are the Banchan variety so probably would have appreciated any perceived racism of the GOP.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Seems like a red herring to me.

The point is that the thread is suggesting that overturning the VRA will "destroy the Democrats" and I disagree. The Democrats can counter with their own gerrymandering, if they don't pussy out. And there is no such thing as "backfire proof gerrymandering". If the Republican support significantly declines in the 2026 midterms, it could be very bad for them.

Even setting aside what i've been talking about the whole time, and the actual purpose of destroying the VRA, you're still a bit off. It's not like the Democrats can wave a wand and make counter-gerrymandering just happen. There are significant hurdles to that in many places. So it's doubtful even if the political will is there that the actual machinery could produce the product you claim. Furthermore, that's a reactive solution; the GOP carries essentially none of the baggage the democrats do in this regard, and destroying the VRA has guaranteed results. It will absolutely result in the effective disenfranchisement of a whole lot of black voters. And then there are the very obvious implications for national elections and election law.

 

[jefferz]

What kind of backwards shithole is redrawing lines in 2025 for elections?

Your democracy is hundreds of years old and you still doing beginner shit...

Sad.

It's bad in certain areas.
In my state, North Dakota, the Republican Party holds a super majority, over 88% of the House and Senate, and yet they still tried to gerrymander.
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians et al. v. Howe


The case of Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians et al. v. Howe involves a federal lawsuit challenging North Dakota's 2021 state legislative redistricting plan on the grounds that it unlawfully diluted Native American voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The plaintiffs, consisting of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual Native American voters, alleged that the redistricting plan packed a supermajority of Native American voters into House Subdistrict 9A while cracking the remaining Native voters into other districts, including District 15, thereby reducing their ability to elect candidates of their choice.

A four-day bench trial was held before the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, where both parties presented evidence, including expert testimony on racially polarized voting. In November 2023, the district court ruled that the redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the VRA and permanently enjoined the Secretary of State from enforcing the plan as it pertained to districts 9 and 15. The court ordered the adoption of a new, legally compliant redistricting plan by December 22, 2023, with subsequent deadlines for objections and responses.

The case then moved to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the state argued that private parties, including tribal nations and individual voters, lacked standing to sue under Section 2 of the VRA. In May 2025, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit ruled that private plaintiffs cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA through Section 1983, a federal statute allowing individuals to sue state officials for civil rights violations. This decision would have effectively barred voters in seven states—Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—from challenging racially discriminatory voting practices in court, a ruling that drew widespread criticism from legal scholars, former Department of Justice attorneys, and voting rights advocates.

In response, the plaintiffs petitioned the full Eighth Circuit for rehearing en banc, supported by amicus briefs from historians, former DOJ attorneys, and multiple states. The Eighth Circuit denied the petition on July 3, 2025. The plaintiffs then sought an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the Eighth Circuit’s decision from taking effect while their petition for writ of certiorari was pending. On July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the stay, temporarily restoring the ability of voters in the affected states to challenge discriminatory voting practices under the VRA.

On September 2, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Eighth Circuit’s decision. The case is now pending before the Supreme Court, with a docket number of 25a62 and scheduled for the October 2025 term. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the ability of minority communities to challenge discriminatory redistricting practices in federal court.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Even setting aside what i've been talking about the whole time, and the actual purpose of destroying the VRA, you're still a bit off. It's not like the Democrats can wave a wand and make counter-gerrymandering just happen. There are significant hurdles to that in many places. So it's doubtful even if the political will is there that the actual machinery could produce the product you claim. Furthermore, that's a reactive solution; the GOP carries essentially none of the baggage the democrats do in this regard, and destroying the VRA has guaranteed results. It will absolutely result in the effective disenfranchisement of a whole lot of black voters. And then there are the very obvious implications for national elections and election law.

So, what you're doing is framing the argument in abstract qualitative terms and then asserting yourself as the authority on the matter.

Let's stick to numbers. What actually matters is how many seats can the republicans get away with gerrymandering, and in what states. Give me specifics. What Red states can gerrymander, and how many seats can they steal away from Democrats?

For example:

California: Democrats have full control of the legislature and will retaliate to Republican gerrymandering: 5-6 seats can be picked up.
New York: Democrats have full control of the legislature and will retaliate with California: 3-6 seats can be picked up.
Illinois: Democrats have already gerrymandered pretty heavily here, but room for 1-2 more districts stolen remains.

And at least one seat can be picked up in each of: Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico. That's up to 17 districts right there for the Democrats. And I don't even think that's a complete list.

So again: Ignoring your qualitative: "It's different, you don't understand, I can't explain it but you're wrong" arguments, specifically what states do you believe that Republicans can gerrymander and how many districts do you think they can steal from Democrats in those states?

 

[Limbo Pete]

So, what you're doing is framing the argument in abstract qualitative terms and then asserting yourself as the authority on the matter.

Let's stick to numbers. What actually matters is how many seats can the republicans get away with gerrymandering, and in what states. Give me specifics. What Red states can gerrymander, and how many seats can they steal away from Democrats?

For example:

California: Democrats have full control of the legislature and will retaliate to Republican gerrymandering: 5-6 seats can be picked up.
New York: Democrats have full control of the legislature and will retaliate with California: 3-6 seats can be picked up.
Illinois: Democrats have already gerrymandered pretty heavily here, but room for 1-2 more districts stolen remains.

And at least one seat can be picked up in each of: Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico. That's up to 17 districts right there for the Democrats. And I don't even think that's a complete list.

So again: Ignoring your qualitative: "It's different, you don't understand, I can't explain it but you're wrong" arguments, specifically what states do you believe that Republicans can gerrymander and how many districts do you think they can steal from Democrats in those states?

Eh, no. On one hand, you're playing this off as some kind of math vs math reactive manuever, which is fine, but on the other hand you seem to be disregarding both the political reality of making these things happen, and the additional reality of the _immediate_ consequences of the VRA being destroyed. It doesn't matter much to accuse me of speculative reasoning if you're counting on some kind of political inevitability on the part of the Democrat machinery. Nobody is arguing that the Democrats can't pick up seats, but it's a guarantee the GOP will pick up seats. I mean, they are already doing it. Not only that, but those seats will come at a cost to Democrats nationally. To put it another way, as much as I would love Democrats to actually effectively counter Republican gerrymandering numerically (setting aside the unavoidable and irreparable disenfranchisement of southern Black voters), I have very little confidence it will be done with nearly the same effectiveness.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Eh, no. On one hand, you're playing this off as some kind of math vs math reactive manuever, which is fine, but on the other hand you seem to be disregarding both the political reality of making these things happen, and the additional reality of the _immediate_ consequences of the VRA being destroyed. It doesn't matter much to accuse me of speculative reasoning if you're counting on some kind of political inevitability on the part of the Democrat machinery. Nobody is arguing that the Democrats can't pick up seats, but it's a guarantee the GOP will pick up seats. I mean, they are already doing it. Not only that, but those seats will come at a cost to Democrats nationally. To put it another way, as much as I would love Democrats to actually effectively counter Republican gerrymandering numerically (setting aside the unavoidable and irreparable disenfranchisement of southern Black voters), I have very little confidence it will be done with nearly the same effectiveness.

Right so you refuse to give any actual examples.

We will just have to wait and see. Democrat states are waiting for Republicans to make the first move. Once SCOTUS strikes down the VRA and Republicans make their move, Democrats in New York will likely file lawsuits for emergency authority to gerrymander.

Courts often have latitude to issue temporary orders that deviate from normal constitutional procedures when timing or chaos would otherwise undermine elections. They could authorize a “one-cycle” map adjustment under the doctrine of practical necessity. A New York State court could easily rule as follows: “Given the Supreme Court’s decision nullifying critical federal voting protections, the Court finds it necessary to grant interim relief permitting redistricting adjustments to ensure stability and electoral equity pending comprehensive legislative review."

Is this a guarantee? No. But is it possible? Absolutely.

 

[sickc0d3r]

You didn't answer the question. What data do you have to support your claim that Democrats gerrymander as bad as the GOP? There's literal math to calculate this, depending on which method you favor.

No, dude. “Bad” is subjective. You can’t support it with “literal math”, and I did explain what I meant.

 

[sickc0d3r]

What kind of backwards shithole is redrawing lines in 2025 for elections?

Your democracy is hundreds of years old and you still doing beginner shit...

Sad.

Oh yeah, man! We have “mid decade redistricting” here. Very democracy-ish-like.

 

[AbominableJoman]

Look at all the libcuck racist scum in here just bitching their soft asses off about racism. Except this time it’s not gonna help THEM. Lmao just lmfao!! Cry bitches

 

[Limbo Pete]

We will just have to wait and see. Democrat states are waiting for Republicans to make the first move.

Well we have no choice, and that move will be destroying the VRA and diluting black (and other minority btw) votes to uselessness. That's the part that is guaranteed. Unless we get a small miracle, the life work of John Roberts will be complete. So pardon me if I don't hold out hope that the courts will save us, when the highest court in the land is very specifically making it happen.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

And therein rests both the lie and the purpose: districts will still be made based on race, but race won't be allowable as a consideration to challenging them.

I remember years ago, probably more than a decade, when all this gerrymandering nonsense starting taking off, and the lawyer arguing the case explicitly asked the Judge to allow the map even though it was prejudicial to minorities because it was also prejudicial to Democrats who he was targeting. Smirking the whole while BTW.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I remember years ago, probably more than a decade, when all this gerrymandering nonsense starting taking off, and the lawyer arguing the case explicitly asked the Judge to allow the map even though it was prejudicial to minorities because it was also prejudicial to Democrats who he was targeting. Smirking the whole while BTW.

That would be Operation Red Map, and it is the single most consequential political machination in modern American history (by far). Our current situation is the direct result.