US southern states are rushing to redraw congressional maps to eliminate Democratic districts and dilute the influence of Black voters in electing candidates, a bare-knuckled blitz occurring even in some states where voting in congressional primaries has begun, and prompted by the US supreme court’s decision gutting section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
If the system was – hugely – biased in your favour and then bias is ruled as not being legal then yes, it’s going to be a bit of a shock as the system reverts to unbiased, isn’t it?
Louisiana, the state at the center of the supreme court’s Voting Rights Act decision, is on the verge of implementing a new map that would eliminate the seat of one of the state’s two Black Democrats in Congress.
Well, yes:
That is, more than a bit obviously, a fiddle, no?
The eastern border is the Mississippi River I guess.
Look at the state of it, meandering all over the place. About time it pulled itself together.
Some of these states’ attempts would be funny if they weren’t serious and the districts are earning names such as “Scorpion” and “Lobster” thanks to their weird shapes. Virginia is very bad.
That is exactly how gerrymandering got its name. A Massachusetts representative named Gerry had a district constructed that wound around the north of the state that looked like a salamander. One of the newspapers dubbed it the Gerrymander.
Thanks Greenie for that wholly useless but unforgettable explanation.
I wish I’d been there. Geriguana? Gerrynewt?
Fun piece of trivia. It was one of the Founding Fathers, Elbridge Gerry, whose name had a hard G (like “get”) even though gerrymandering is pronounced with a soft G (like “gel”).
He was actually Governor of Massachusetts not representative (and so it wasn’t his district), and he reportedly disagreed with the redistricting personally, but his name stuck to the practice because as governor it was him who signed it into law after the legislature passed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry
Also it was a mythological salamander like you’d get in a medieval bestiary, rather than a biologically accurate amphibian.
Excellent, thanks MG.
It sounds like it should be a town in Ireland, where electoral fraud was part of the game.
Black voters should have precisely the same say over electing candidates as any others, and now they do.
Meanwhile, let’s look at New England, where the brass necked hypocrisy of these cunts actually does impress me.
All six New England states have zero Republican members in the House of Representatives – every one of the region’s 21 House seats is held by Democrats.
In the Senate, New England is represented by nine Democrats, two Independents (who caucus with Democrats), and a single Republican (Susan Collins of Maine, who regularly votes with the Ds).
Here are is the Republican vote share in New England at the last presidential election:
New Hampshire – 48.6%
Connecticut – 43.6%
Maine – 46.5%
Massachusetts – 37%
Rhode Island – 38 – 40%
Vermont – 32.3%
So they average around 40% and they get zero representation. Someone should point this out to the Guardian.
That is *exactly* what the Grauniad wants for Reform – zero representation.
Except…….
In North Carolina (not mentioned in the article) as well as deep red Georgie and Mississippi RINO pussy governors and senators are blocking attempts by their own party to redistrict and abolish the convoluted district boundaries set up to ensure black congressmen.
I’m sick of stressing importance of the 2026 midterms yet while one side is doing everything within their power to tilt the balance the other, in too many cases, does f-all to prevent likely Democrat majorities in both houses.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/05/13/republican-south-carolina-senate-leader-kills-gops-redistricting-effort-competition-makes-us-better/
And then there’s this little turd. “Our state is stronger with vibrant parties,” the senate leader stated. “I think we, as a whole, are stronger when we have a clash of ideas. I think that’s true at the national level, I think it’s true at the state level.”
He continued on to argue that “Republicans are stronger when the Democrat Party is vibrant and viable.”
It’s just not America. Over here for several decades Labour had an inbuilt 20-30 seat advantage due to the lower average population in their constituencies. When the boundary commission report in 2010 provided guidelines for evening out this discrepancy the ham-faced pigfucker in number ten refused to implement them.
That’s unfair: Cameron had to promise a referendum on PR as part of the Liberals’ terms for entering a coalition, so boundary changes weren’t even an option until after the referendum.
And then the LibDems got in a strop about something and refused to support the boundary changes.
That boundary review was premised on cutting the Commons to 600 seats, so needed bigger constituencies. This was something both Clegg and Cameron had agreed to in their 2010 coalition agreement, so appeared in the terms set for the review in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which had also set out the 2011 AV referendum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Voting_System_and_Constituencies_Act_2011
This mostly benefited the Tories who would likely have won about 299 seats if the 2010 election results were repeated under plausible new boundaries (down from 306 out of 650, so a few Turkeys would need to vote for Xmas… obvs in practice the result would not be a repeat since tactical voting would have worked differently under new constituencies) but Lib Dem strongholds tend to be more geographically isolated from each other so increasing the size of the constituencies would have eaten into their majorities and lost many of their seats. So the Lib Dems were always incentivised to reject, especially as their polling numbers deteriorated as the coalition years went on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_periodic_review_of_Westminster_constituencies
The strop that triggered it was because the coalition agreement had included an elected upper chamber to replace the House of Lords, something that had been in the manifesto of both parties (as well as Labour – truly the uniparty in action). Cameron had agreed with this but wanted a referendum which the coalition agreement didn’t say anything about it. Clegg wanted it to go ahead with no referendum. Tory backbenchers led by Jesse Norman opposed it outright and defied the whip to vote it down in July 2012. (Labour agreed in principle with the idea but had also voted against.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Reform_Bill_2012
Clegg declared that the Conservatives had broken the coalition agreement on political reform, which he saw a total package and not as separate provisions for Lords and Commons, so promised he would now block the boundary review even though its work was already underway. Cameron pledged to keep pushing on with it since he didn’t want to fight the next election under the old boundaries – analysis at the time said the Tories needed an 11% lead to get a majority on those boundaries whereas Labour only needed a 3% lead. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-19158924
The review terminated its work in January 2013 after Lib Dem ministers in the House of Lords voted with Labour to block it, and Cameron eventually decided not to take it again to the Commons where it would inevitably have been defeated again. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-21020605
So why didn’t he keep his promise to them?
Only joking, it’s Cameron after all.
Cameron did keep his promise to hold the 2011 AV referendum. The thing where Clegg felt a promise had been broken was when Tory backbenchers led by Jesse Norman voted down an elected House of Lords, despite it also being in the coalition agreement (and both parties’ manifestos). Cameron himself had been in favour. Clegg viewed the affair as a betrayal and declared that he would also block the boundary reform since he saw the Commons and Lords reforms as one combined package of work under the coalition agreement. This was very convenient for him since the new boundaries would have been disadvantageous to the Lib Dems…
He should have refused and called another election or let Labour and the Lib Dems form a coalition and own the resultant chaos.
Thinking about the situation at the time, an election would have been madness.
1) In 2013, Labour had a huge polling lead.
2) It would have meant fighting under old boundaries where analysis at the time suggested the Tories needed an 11% lead to get a majority whereas Labour only needed 3%.
3) Even if Cameron had wanted to call an election, the Fixed Term Parliament Act applied at the time. An early election was still possible but it meant Cameron would not have been in control of the timetable.
The LDs wanted a ref on PR. Cameron was never going to agree to that but accepted a ref on AV (called instant runoff in other parts of the world) which wouldn’t have required boundary changes like STV or PR would, and to be honest wouldn’t even have had that much effect on election outcomes (which is why he agreed to it). That was what was in the 2010 coalition agreement, and was bundled into a single bill with the boundary review. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative%E2%80%93Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Voting_System_and_Constituencies_Act_2011
“When the boundary commission report in 2010 provided guidelines for evening out this discrepancy the ham-faced pigfucker in number ten refused to implement them.”
Every detail here is incorrect.
There was no boundary commission report in 2010. The fifth periodic review of Westminster constituencies took place 2000-2007 and it was implemented in time for the 2010 election – but this can’t be the one you’re thinking of, surely?
The sixth review, also known as the 2013 review, was launched as part of the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which also set up the 2011 AV referendum. This review was supposed to equalise constituency sizes but also reduce the Commons to 600 seats, part of the 2010 coalition agreement between Cameron and Clegg.
Cameron was desperate for these boundary changes to take place as the old boundaries needed the Tories to have (under the distribution of votes at the time) something like an 11% lead to get a majority while Labour only needed 3%. They would have disadvantaged the Lib Dems considerably – Lib Dem strongholds are geographically isolated so larger constituencies eat into their majorities. Clegg used this as leverage to get things he did want. But given the disastrous Lib Dem polling situation during the coalition years, he was obviously very willing to stop the changes at the slightest excuse.
His chance came when Tory backbenchers led by Jesse Norman killed the House of Lords Reform Bill in late 2012. Cameron had vowed to keep fighting for the boundary reforms in Aug 2012 when Clegg first announced they were off. But once Clegg ordered his Lords ministers to vote to block the boundary changes in Jan 2013, it was clear there was no route forward – Cameron could have brought the matter back to the Commons but they obviously would be defeated there too. And so the sixth review ended its work in 2013 without any final result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_periodic_review_of_Westminster_constituencies
Yep. The purpose of redistricting is to FIX past Democrat gerrymandering.
Of course it will be the senator saying that, he has zero skin in this game since senators are elected state-wide.
John wrote ” . . . .set up to ensure black congressmen. . . .”, and WADR, you miss the point. The goal is to create districts which will reliably elect Democrat representatives. Whether or not they are black is (relatively) immaterial to the Democrats, although it’s a nice bonus if they are. Many of these fantastically-created districts return white representatives, and in many places, Deomcrats frantically oppose black and/or female candidates for those districts who are Republicans. It’s not about colour, it’s about party, and Democrats continue to try and exploit the general tendency for black voters to vote Democrat in order to increase the number of Democrat representatives, they don’t give a damn about their colour or anything else, it’s the party that matters.
llater,
lkamas
Aye – I offer as example Steve Cohen, the rep for the majority black Memphis district. He’s been there 19 years, is as lily white as they come, and I think he recently had a challenger who was a black woman, So all those black people in Memphis had a chance, under the old district, to have a black person representing them in Congress. Just one problem – she was Republican, and we can’t have that, now. But with the new district – there’s a good chance the rep from Memphis will be black…just not democrat, and that is what has their panties bunched.
If you look at the sat photos of Louisiana & presuming the disputed districts are the pink & green ones, it’s not really a colour thing. Those districts are spread along the Mississippi & the Red River. And that’s where the industrial towns & cities grew up So effectively those areas are going to behave as ribbon ciities with cities’ needs. Very different from the rest of Louisiana, which is agricultural & most of the area of the state. So it does make some sort of sense. If the congressional districts are more geographical, you get large agricultural areas will be dominated by the voting preferences of population clusters in included cities & vica versa. You have that in the UK, don’t you? The London conurbation is really a continuous city stretches from say Reading to Southend. A recent discussion about whether Havering belongs in Greater London. And the same political problems because minorities don’t distribute equally but concentrate in certain areas. Tower Hamlets wasn’t created to provide a Muslim feifdom by the Thames. It is one because a lot of Bangladeshis & Pakistanis have chosen to live there.