Latest Breaking News

Coalition minority-majority districts were ruled as not relevant to the VRA.

Houston has several. BIPOC candidates win because they're mostly BIPOC, but the VRA doesn't cover "BIPOC", just African-American, Hispanic, etc.

With that ruling, the Houston districts were suddenly recast as not required gerrymandering--they're rather notoriously gerrymandered, to be honest, and the VRA required this horrendous thing we're all against except when we're in favor of it, this "gerrymandering" that depends on the polarity of the gerrymandering for value judgments. Now that they were required, it was just racial gerrymandering that counted as pro-(D) gerrymandering.

Which, to be honest, is how many left of center viewed it. Yes, it protected minority-yet-guaranteed-(D) seats. Which meant that the entire 2019 argument was recapped in the ".". The justification is now that the gerrymander preserves (D) seats--which we want. Unless we don't.

No disallowing coalition districts, no issue.

What's intriguing is when you look at recent (R)/(D) splits in voting versus (R)/(D) splits in state-level representation. The new TX districts makes TX something like 18% skewed (R) versus the last few general elections. Many states are far worse. Not justification, but not all the "far worse" states are red.