Supreme Court decides only Democrats can use race in gerrymandering

The Supreme Court decided that the Republican legislature in North Carolina impermissibly considered the racial rather than the partisan makeup of the state's population when drawing congressional districts.

The Supreme Court struck down two North Carolina congressional districts on Monday, ruling that lawmakers had violated the Constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing them, in a decision that could affect many voting maps, generally in the South.

Republicans in the North Carolina legislature denied that race was the predominant factor in redrawing the boundaries of the two districts under review. In one of them, though, they said, they had made some use of race.

The lawmakers said they had tried to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which in some settings requires that black voters be concentrated in numbers sufficient to provide them an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. But critics of the voting map said the legislature was actually trying to diminish the number of districts in the state that could be won by Democrats.

This is incomprehensible. The Voting Rights Act requires legislators to manipulate the racial makeup of districts to elect minorities, but then the Court is criticizing North Carolina for manipulating the racial makeup of districts too much.

In Monday's decision on North Carolina's congressional map, the justices were unanimous in rejecting District 1, in the northeastern part of the state. After the 2010 census, lawmakers increased the district's black voting-age population to 52.7 percent from 48.6 percent.

The court divided, 5 to 3, in rejecting District 12, in the south-central part of the state. Lawmakers increased the number of black voters to 50.7 percent from 43.8 percent. "To be specific, the new District 12 had 35,000 more African-Americans of voting age and 50,000 fewer whites of that age," Justice Kagan wrote.

That's too many blacks in one district, according to the Court.  The court tries to make an artificial distinction between gerrymandering by race and by partisanship, but since blacks tend to vote uniformly Democratic, the two are really one and the same.

Liberals passed this disgusting provision of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain election results, meanig the election of more people of a certain race.  But afterward they realized that this provision harmed them if too many blacks were packed in two few districts, so they decided that they no longer liked the Voting Rights Act and no longer want racial gerrymandering.

Of course, liberals still want racial gerrymandering.  But they don't want districts that are 50% black.  They prefer districts that are only 30% or so black so blacks, together with homosexuals, union members, wacko environmentalists, government employees, and brainwashed college graduates, can elect Democrats.  More blacks spread out among more districts means more Democrats elected.

This kind of "racial gerrymandering" is what the court seems to have no problem with.  It's amazing what control liberals have.  They pass a law giving blacks preference in redistricting.  Then, when they decide that the law no longer suits their purpose, they issue a court decision effectively canceling their own law.  The law ceases to have meaning as liberals exercise control through whatever means necessary.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

The Supreme Court decided that the Republican legislature in North Carolina impermissibly considered the racial rather than the partisan makeup of the state's population when drawing congressional districts.

The Supreme Court struck down two North Carolina congressional districts on Monday, ruling that lawmakers had violated the Constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing them, in a decision that could affect many voting maps, generally in the South.

Republicans in the North Carolina legislature denied that race was the predominant factor in redrawing the boundaries of the two districts under review. In one of them, though, they said, they had made some use of race.

The lawmakers said they had tried to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which in some settings requires that black voters be concentrated in numbers sufficient to provide them an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. But critics of the voting map said the legislature was actually trying to diminish the number of districts in the state that could be won by Democrats.

This is incomprehensible. The Voting Rights Act requires legislators to manipulate the racial makeup of districts to elect minorities, but then the Court is criticizing North Carolina for manipulating the racial makeup of districts too much.

In Monday's decision on North Carolina's congressional map, the justices were unanimous in rejecting District 1, in the northeastern part of the state. After the 2010 census, lawmakers increased the district's black voting-age population to 52.7 percent from 48.6 percent.

The court divided, 5 to 3, in rejecting District 12, in the south-central part of the state. Lawmakers increased the number of black voters to 50.7 percent from 43.8 percent. "To be specific, the new District 12 had 35,000 more African-Americans of voting age and 50,000 fewer whites of that age," Justice Kagan wrote.

That's too many blacks in one district, according to the Court.  The court tries to make an artificial distinction between gerrymandering by race and by partisanship, but since blacks tend to vote uniformly Democratic, the two are really one and the same.

Liberals passed this disgusting provision of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain election results, meanig the election of more people of a certain race.  But afterward they realized that this provision harmed them if too many blacks were packed in two few districts, so they decided that they no longer liked the Voting Rights Act and no longer want racial gerrymandering.

Of course, liberals still want racial gerrymandering.  But they don't want districts that are 50% black.  They prefer districts that are only 30% or so black so blacks, together with homosexuals, union members, wacko environmentalists, government employees, and brainwashed college graduates, can elect Democrats.  More blacks spread out among more districts means more Democrats elected.

This kind of "racial gerrymandering" is what the court seems to have no problem with.  It's amazing what control liberals have.  They pass a law giving blacks preference in redistricting.  Then, when they decide that the law no longer suits their purpose, they issue a court decision effectively canceling their own law.  The law ceases to have meaning as liberals exercise control through whatever means necessary.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS