Oh, Texas

[Ahriman238]

The DoJ is suing the government of Texas in the federal court, seeking a preclearance order for redistricting, that Gerrymandering the state is famous for.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in late June that weakened the Voting Rights Act, Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department will use what's left of the law to go after what it considers discriminatory practices.

And the first target will be Texas, in a dispute over new boundaries drawn by the Republican legislature for congressional and legislative districts.

Holder told National Urban League this morning that the Justice Department's Civil Rights division will urge a federal judge in Texas to subject the State of Texas to a pre-clearance regime similar to the one required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- a part of the law that survived the Supreme Court's ruling.

"This request to 'bail in' the state -- and require it to obtain pre-approval from either the department or a federal court before implementing future voting changes -- is available under the Voting Rights Act when intentional voting discrimination is found," he said.

"We believe that the State of Texas should be required to go through a pre-clearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices."

Holder said this is how the government will continue using the law "to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected."

And Rick Perry's rebuttal.

Gov. Rick Perry (R) criticized a decision by the Obama administration to pursue legal action against the Lone Star State to place Texas back under preclearance, requiring federal approval for any changes to voting laws.

In a speech to the National Urban League in Philadelphia this week, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Department of Justice will ask a federal court in San Antonio to require advance approval for voting changes in Texas. Perry called the move an "end-run around the Supreme Court," claiming the Obama administration is casting "unfair aspersions" on Texas' voting rights efforts.

In June, the High Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.

Holder's announcement marks the administration's first response to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act. Holder said the action "will not be our last."

Actual text of Perry's statement:

Once again, the Obama Administration is demonstrating utter contempt for our country's system of checks and balances, not to mention the U.S. Constitution. This end-run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state's common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process.

I really feel for you with the Obama Administration ignoring the constitution, and all, so does the rest of America. Bit less so, when they legally go after you for blatant abuse of the system.

[Mr Bean]

I really feel for you with the Obama Administration ignoring the constitution, and all, so does the rest of America. Bit less so, when they legally go after you for blatant abuse of the system.

Ahriman the DOJ is not doing an end run around the Constitution in this case. The voting act has multiple parts and the DOJ is using something other than the giant racist list to prosecute Texas. There are multiple enforcement mechanisms within the bill. Some of which still exist.

[TronPaul]

Noticed there were no links, tried to find the sources.

First quote NBC
Second Huffington Post

Those were where I found them, not sure if those are your same sources.

[davidutlib]

Both parties gerrymander, and it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with...wait for it...helping your political party win. Note that I'm not advocating for the system of gerrymandering, but the intent of it has very little, if anything, to do with racism. The fact is that the vast majority of African Americans vote for Democrats (and an even greater percentage voted for Obama -- wonder why?). This means that when the Republican Party is in power, and Congressional redistricting happens, more than likely, the GOP is going to gain more seats.

Does this "dilute the voting power" of blacks? Sure, I guess. Is the intent racist? No, it's partisan. Saying GOP gerrymandering is racist is sort of like saying that, if the Democrats were in power, that gerrymandering on their part would be a campaign of racism against whites. If you want to come up with a new system for redistricting, I'm all for it, as long as it's applicable to both sides.

Additionally, if you want to talk about voter suppression, let's talk about why the Justice Department didn't bring charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in 2008, which was a far more egregious case of racial voter intimidation than is anything the State of Texas does with redistricting.

[Imperial Overlord]

Both parties gerrymander, and it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with...wait for it...helping your political party win. Note that I'm not advocating for the system of gerrymandering, but the intent of it has very little, if anything, to do with racism. The fact is that the vast majority of African Americans vote for Democrats (and an even greater percentage voted for Obama -- wonder why?). This means that when the Republican Party is in power, and Congressional redistricting happens, more than likely, the GOP is going to gain more seats.

And why do the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat? Could the GOP's very long and very tarnished history of racism have something to do it? Being greedy and power hungry doesn't excuse Dixie era plantation owners from charges of racism, why should it excuse modern politicians?

Does this "dilute the voting power" of blacks? Sure, I guess. Is the intent racist? No, it's partisan. Saying GOP gerrymandering is racist is sort of like saying that, if the Democrats were in power, that gerrymandering on their part would be a campaign of racism against whites. If you want to come up with a new system for redistricting, I'm all for it, as long as it's applicable to both sides.

Pursuing a policy of that make white votes count more than black votes is racist. That they also disenfranchise white people living in Austen doesn't make morally acceptable. It's quite possible to be corrupt, power hungry, and racist at the same time.

Additionally, if you want to talk about voter suppression, let's talk about why the Justice Department didn't bring charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in 2008, which was a far more egregious case of racial voter intimidation than is anything the State of Texas does with redistricting.

That's your opinion, not an argument. I look forward to you proving that one incident at one poling station involving two men is far more serious than a prolonged campaign covering decades by the highest levels of the government of Texas to disenfranchise minorities and deny fair representation to large areas of the state in order to shore up one party's power base.

[energiewende]

And why do the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat? Could the GOP's very long and very tarnished history of racism have something to do it? Being greedy and power hungry doesn't excuse Dixie era plantation owners from charges of racism, why should it excuse modern politicians?

How long is the Party of Lincoln's tarnished history of racism? The last time that discriminatory laws were seriously defended in the US the Republicans out-voted the Democrats to abolish them. Before that - well, were they dramatically more racist in some period following Reconstruction?

Black voters used to block vote Republican the same way they now block vote Democrat. The switch seems to have coincided with the rise of the welfare state and the Democratic Party as its champion.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Black voters used to block vote Republican the same way they now block vote Democrat. The switch seems to have coincided with the rise of the welfare state and the Democratic Party as its champion.

And I am sure you have some WONDERFUL sources to back up that little claim right?
And remember, news articles on Fox News do NOT count.

[energiewende]

Why does it even surprise you - presumably you know the history of your own country?

Back in the mid 19th century the Republicans abolished slavery and established reconstruction. The Democrats were the party of States' Rights and the South. As you can see from the votes on the CRA, Southern or Northern was the real deciding factor in voting rather than Democrat or Republican - but a larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted in favour because South was still solid Democrat at that time. In fact, with a brief detour through Hoover in 1928, the South voted Democrat (and a splinter party, the States Rights Democratic Party) overwhelmingly in every election between the end of Reconstruction and Eisenhower in 1952. Even after this break from pure CSA-bloc voting, the majority of Southern states remained Democrat right up until 1972 when they all went for Nixon. Then they switched back immediately to vote almost unanimously for good ol' boy Jimmy Carter (and win him the election, I might add). 'Southern Republicanism' doesn't stick until Reagan in 1980, and I hope we can agree that official racism was decidedly off the table by that point.

[Imperial Overlord]

And why do the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat? Could the GOP's very long and very tarnished history of racism have something to do it? Being greedy and power hungry doesn't excuse Dixie era plantation owners from charges of racism, why should it excuse modern politicians?

How long is the Party of Lincoln's tarnished history of racism? The last time that discriminatory laws were seriously defended in the US the Republicans out-voted the Democrats to abolish them. Before that - well, were they dramatically more racist in some period following Reconstruction?

Black voters used to block vote Republican the same way they now block vote Democrat. The switch seems to have coincided with the rise of the welfare state and the Democratic Party as its champion.

We all know the switch happened when the Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act and lost the South, which happened well before I was born. The infamous Republican Southern Strategy that followed after the Civil Rights Act, picking up the South for the Republicans by appealing to white racism. You know, the parts of the country under discussion for gerrymandering districts so blacks are under represented.

[Losonti Tokash]

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The total ignorance of the southern strategy and disregard for how many of the Republicans who voted for the CRA switched to the Democrats (and vice versa) is pretty good, but my favorite part is the idea that by 1980, racism was somehow "off the table."

[energiewende]

He is saying policies that the Republicans supported anyway can be made to appeal to racists, not that the Republicans adopted racist policies. This is the whole point of the "dogwhistle" accusations: racists hear what they want to hear, everyone else hears moderation. If you disagree, what racist policies did the Republicans support in 1980? Do you believe there was a serious movement to bring back segregation at that time?


edit: It's arguable this flip was actually a result of Jim Crow itself. The Democrats have historically been the party of the economic losers in the US. In the 19th century, this was the South which continued to operate a feudal plantation economy while the North industrialised. Since the Republicans did not succeed in securing the blacks good social status during Reconstruction, the freed blacks became a new class of economic losers in the US. Once the national Democratic party abandoned explicit segregationist policies (which caused the brief split into Democratic and States Rights Democratic) and these were repealed with Republican support, the black population simply became another low income group and naturally gravitated Democratic. Hence this strategist is saying that economic issues about taxation and welfare became the new frontline in the racial politics as well - but it is wrong to say that, because the Republicans don't support taxing more (which disproportionately hurts whites) and giving more in welfare (which disproportionately favours blacks), that they are an anti-black party, since they always supported low taxation and low welfare spending. What the Republicans would most like is that blacks become an economic success and no longer depend on welfare. Why didn't that happen? The Democrats' anti-black policies that lasted 100 years after the Civil War.

[Losonti Tokash]

Why did all those segregationist Democrats turn Republican? Why do African Americans (and virtually every other ethnic minority in the United States) overwhelmingly support Democrats? Why are you lying through your teeth about what Atwater said? Even if your bullshit spin on what he said is true, why do you think it's acceptable to cater to white supremacists? Why do you think it's acceptable to deliberately weaken the voting ability of ethnic groups simply because they vote against your racist policies?

[Jaepheth]

Is gerrymandering so popular with both parties that no one will introduce a law that requires redrawing districts using a set algorithm that will produce a unique and fair result?

[Pelranius]

Is gerrymandering so popular with both parties that no one will introduce a law that requires redrawing districts using a set algorithm that will produce a unique and fair result?

State legislatures and the local party machinery (as well as the activists populating the primaries) like gerrymandering just fine (especially if you're in a state like Maryland or Texas), so bipartisan support for fair redistricting isn't deep enough (yet) to overcome entrenched interests.

[Knife]

Wow, there is some serious revisionist history going on here isn't there. Lincoln's party of racism seems to go back exactly as far as when the racists Democratic Southern shitheads jumped ship and went Republican (well most of them anyways, some stayed; Bird comes to mind). Tis a shame really, that the party who's initial start and big moment in history was to advocate the freedom of all peoples with government enforcement of such Federal edicts becoming what it is today. Tis funny that the racist shitbags who where the Democrats jumped ship and let the Democrats pretty much become the soul and spirit of what the Republican party was founded on. Little ironic really.

[Welf]

He is saying policies that the Republicans supported anyway can be made to appeal to racists, not that the Republicans adopted racist policies. This is the whole point of the "dogwhistle" accusations: racists hear what they want to hear, everyone else hears moderation. If you disagree, what racist policies did the Republicans support in 1980? Do you believe there was a serious movement to bring back segregation at that time?


edit: It's arguable this flip was actually a result of Jim Crow itself. The Democrats have historically been the party of the economic losers in the US. In the 19th century, this was the South which continued to operate a feudal plantation economy while the North industrialised. Since the Republicans did not succeed in securing the blacks good social status during Reconstruction, the freed blacks became a new class of economic losers in the US. Once the national Democratic party abandoned explicit segregationist policies (which caused the brief split into Democratic and States Rights Democratic) and these were repealed with Republican support, the black population simply became another low income group and naturally gravitated Democratic. Hence this strategist is saying that economic issues about taxation and welfare became the new frontline in the racial politics as well - but it is wrong to say that, because the Republicans don't support taxing more (which disproportionately hurts whites) and giving more in welfare (which disproportionately favours blacks), that they are an anti-black party, since they always supported low taxation and low welfare spending. What the Republicans would most like is that blacks become an economic success and no longer depend on welfare. Why didn't that happen? The Democrats' anti-black policies that lasted 100 years after the Civil War.

That's the maker/taker narrative. But it has two big problems: asian americans and Jews. Asian Americans voted 73% for Obama in 2012, and Jews did also almost 3:1. Jews are America's 2nd most wealthy group, Asian-americans have an median income roughly 10.000 USD higher than non-hispanic whites.

[davidutlib]

Is gerrymandering so popular with both parties that no one will introduce a law that requires redrawing districts using a set algorithm that will produce a unique and fair result?

Basically, yes. Oh, the Democrats in Texas might support such an algorithm, but only because they aren't the party in power.

Guys and gals, I'm not supporting gerrymandering as such. I'm just pointing out that it has a hell of a lot more to do with political parties than it does with racism.

And as for why blacks tend to vote Democrat? Quite frankly, in my opinion, this has to do with the fact that Democrats are far more likely to vote for social programs that benefit blacks. It's economic. The Republican Party isn't racist -- certainly, elements of the Tea Party is, but so are elements of the Democratic Party. The reality is that blacks are voting with the party that, over the past several decades, has given them the most "free" shit, ie, wealth transfers from other people.

[Imperial Overlord]

Bullshit.

1) Texas has a long and distinguished history of gerrymandering, with the Supreme Court striking down their electoral maps. Other regions of the South have similar histories. Washington State doesn't. Vermont doesn't. Oregon doesn't. This isn't politics as usual. This is a very specific kind of politics that sees in parts of the former Confederacy and not by coincidence. When one part of the Voting Rights act was struck down, five states rushed forward with new bills that will effectively make it harder for blacks to vote and these are members of the old Confederacy. Not a fucking coincidence.

2) You've completely failed to address how deeply tied the Republican political strategy for these parts of the country is tied to racism. The points that have been made don't go away because you don't answer them. As pointed out, when you can't say "nigger" anymore you talk about busing and welfare queens. That your welfare queens are imaginary doesn't hurt because your intended audience gets the point.

The strategy to attract votes is racist.

The gerrymandering is racist.

That it serves the interest of the Republicans doesn't make them morally neutral, it makes them power hungry exploiters and practitioners of racism.

[energiewende]

He is saying policies that the Republicans supported anyway can be made to appeal to racists, not that the Republicans adopted racist policies. This is the whole point of the "dogwhistle" accusations: racists hear what they want to hear, everyone else hears moderation. If you disagree, what racist policies did the Republicans support in 1980? Do you believe there was a serious movement to bring back segregation at that time?


edit: It's arguable this flip was actually a result of Jim Crow itself. The Democrats have historically been the party of the economic losers in the US. In the 19th century, this was the South which continued to operate a feudal plantation economy while the North industrialised. Since the Republicans did not succeed in securing the blacks good social status during Reconstruction, the freed blacks became a new class of economic losers in the US. Once the national Democratic party abandoned explicit segregationist policies (which caused the brief split into Democratic and States Rights Democratic) and these were repealed with Republican support, the black population simply became another low income group and naturally gravitated Democratic. Hence this strategist is saying that economic issues about taxation and welfare became the new frontline in the racial politics as well - but it is wrong to say that, because the Republicans don't support taxing more (which disproportionately hurts whites) and giving more in welfare (which disproportionately favours blacks), that they are an anti-black party, since they always supported low taxation and low welfare spending. What the Republicans would most like is that blacks become an economic success and no longer depend on welfare. Why didn't that happen? The Democrats' anti-black policies that lasted 100 years after the Civil War.

That's the maker/taker narrative. But it has two big problems: asian americans and Jews. Asian Americans voted 73% for Obama in 2012, and Jews did also almost 3:1. Jews are America's 2nd most wealthy group, Asian-americans have an median income roughly 10.000 USD higher than non-hispanic whites.

What's that got to do with the Southern Strategy and explicitly anti-black racism? Since no party has advocated racist policies against asians and jews in recent times it seems more likely this is due to the Republicans' strong identification with Christianity on social issues.

[madd0ct0r]

except a big chunk of the asian american popualtion are deeply christian, being formed of the Catholic minority of Vietnamese or converting shortly after arrival thanks to the sheer amount of help church organsistions gave the refugees.

[Mr Bean]

What's that got to do with the Southern Strategy and explicitly anti-black racism? Since no party has advocated racist policies against asians and jews in recent times it seems more likely this is due to the Republicans' strong identification with Christianity on social issues.

Christian fundamentalist support for state rests in part in the belief on biblical prophecy that the end times can not occur without a Jewish state in control of the Temple mount. Said prophecy states that Jews will convert or die when Jesus returns. Some might call that a touch offensive.
Also you seem to have missed all the Chinese fear mongering in the past four years or does China not get counted under the label

Energiewende, the Republican party in America runs on the concept of the great "other" and how you should fear them. Be it some nationality or some race or some social economic class. The only thing that changes over the years is the identity of the great "other". Sometimes they appear more or less racist depending on the identity of that other.

[energiewende]

except a big chunk of the asian american popualtion are deeply christian, being formed of the Catholic minority of Vietnamese or converting shortly after arrival thanks to the sheer amount of help church organsistions gave the refugees.

http://naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAA ... ection.pdf

Filipinos and Vietnamese voted more favourably for McCain than whites (page 11) and while this data has very large numbers of undecideds, projected support for Romney in those groups wasn't dramatically different (page 16).

Christian fundamentalist support for state rests in part in the belief on biblical prophecy that the end times can not occur without a Jewish state in control of the Temple mount. Said prophecy states that Jews will convert or die when Jesus returns. Some might call that a touch offensive.

Ah, so Republicans' block-headed support for Israel offends Jews?

Also you seem to have missed all the Chinese fear mongering in the past four years or does China not get counted under the label

China is a state and justifiably feared, by escapees and defectors more than anyone. Do you think FDR was racist against North Europeans because he "fear-mongered" about Germany?

Energiewende, the Republican party in America runs on the concept of the great "other" and how you should fear them.

Is that how they describe themselves, or how their political enemies describe them?

[Zaune]

You're all missing the point. It's not the black vote they're trying to suppress. It's the poor vote. The "economic losers", as energiewende put it. It's pure Social Darwinism; these people aren't clever and ruthless enough to make themselves rich, ergo in the eyes of your average Republican sponsor they are inferior and deserve only to be trampled beneath the well-shod heel of their betters. That most of them happen to be black is merely an accident of history.

[Mr Bean]

Ah, so Republicans' block-headed support for Israel offends Jews?

Yes because Israel does not equal all Jews. Also sometimes Republican politicians slip up in public or are caught on tape, best example of this is of course the king of the southern strategy one Richard M Nixion but we can go much more recently we have Republican Representatives still referring to haggling as "trying to Jew me down".

Also you seem to have missed all the Chinese fear mongering in the past four years or does China not get counted under the label

China is a state and justifiably feared, by escapees and defectors more than anyone. Do you think FDR was racist against North Europeans because he "fear-mongered" about Germany?

Did you compare China to Nazi Germany a country which was in the midst of an invasion of a neighboring country an allied with Imperial Japan a country who had been at war (With China) for over five years at this point.

I can see how a non American who has not grown up in our system may have a few blind spots, but this is deliberate fear mongering.
Let me be blunt, if America wanted to go to war we could not, no more than China could go to war with us. No conventional war is possible between our two countries because of terrain, distance and modern warfare realities. Any potential conflict between our two countries would have to be short and nuclear. Meaning no amount of tanks, soldiers, or armed forces will mean anything sans how prepped our nuclear forces are and what countermeasures exist on both sides.

Energiewende, the Republican party in America runs on the concept of the great "other" and how you should fear them.

Is that how they describe themselves, or how their political enemies describe them?[/quote]
It's based on an objective assessment over decades of operation of the Republican party since Barry Goldwater moved into endless us vs them. Republican presidential speech can be broken down into two basic speeches.

First you either identify yourself or identify the enemy. Next if you started by identifying the enemy, the identify yourself and explain how your nothing like the enemy. If you started with yourself you identify the enemy and explained how they are nothing like you.

One speech is negative, the other positive in that in one your touting the wickedness of the enemy while in the other you praise your own goodness.

[energiewende]

Yes because Israel does not equal all Jews. Also sometimes Republican politicians slip up in public or are caught on tape, best example of this is of course the king of the southern strategy one Richard M Nixion but we can go much more recently we have Republican Representatives still referring to haggling as "trying to Jew me down".

And many Democrats think Israel is a genocidal state that is secretly controlling the world; nonetheless one would expect the GOP's support for Israel to be generally supported by Jews. This is after all the impression that is given whenever the "Israel lobby" is brought up.

Also you seem to have missed all the Chinese fear mongering in the past four years or does China not get counted under the label

China is a state and justifiably feared, by escapees and defectors more than anyone. Do you think FDR was racist against North Europeans because he "fear-mongered" about Germany?

Did you compare China to Nazi Germany a country which was in the midst of an invasion of a neighboring country an allied with Imperial Japan a country who had been at war (With China) for over five years at this point.

I can see how a non American who has not grown up in our system may have a few blind spots, but this is deliberate fear mongering.
Let me be blunt, if America wanted to go to war we could not, no more than China could go to war with us. No conventional war is possible between our two countries because of terrain, distance and modern warfare realities. Any potential conflict between our two countries would have to be short and nuclear. Meaning no amount of tanks, soldiers, or armed forces will mean anything sans how prepped our nuclear forces are and what countermeasures exist on both sides.

The PRC will soon be a military peer-competitor to the United States and it has irredentist territorial claims on at least three democracies. I think you also know that those regimes were not only a threat to citizens of other countries.

Energiewende, the Republican party in America runs on the concept of the great "other" and how you should fear them.

Is that how they describe themselves, or how their political enemies describe them?

It's based on an objective assessment over decades of operation of the Republican party since Barry Goldwater moved into endless us vs them. Republican presidential speech can be broken down into two basic speeches.

First you either identify yourself or identify the enemy. Next if you started by identifying the enemy, the identify yourself and explain how your nothing like the enemy. If you started with yourself you identify the enemy and explained how they are nothing like you.

One speech is negative, the other positive in that in one your touting the wickedness of the enemy while in the other you praise your own goodness.

So, the latter.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like political Christianity, and I think it's a loser for the Republicans in the medium term. But that's about the worst of their problems. They are not the lunatics you would paint them as.