In 1986 Supreme Court rules it's OK to gerrymander districts--if it's done to ensure a black is elected to congress

So you think the Democrats/leftists love democracy, eh?  At least that seems to be the idea behind their demanding an end to the electoral college system of electing presidents, eh?  But that "fairness" bleat can go in the wastebasket in two seconds when they decide it's in their interest to stop counting votes equally.  Watch:

Teachers unions are probably the most far-left major organizations on the planet.  And one such teachers union has pulled yet another bit of "We set the rules so we can change 'em whenever we want" out of their asses:  They came to the conclusion that since there were more white teachers than non-whites, then IF whites voted as a monolithic bloc (which of course they don't!), they would always have the ability to out-vote minorities.

Those of you who've read this blog for awhile already know where this is going, and how the wokies "fixed it," in the sense of rigging the outcome to favor minorities.

See, *it just wasn't FAIR* that there were more white teachers!  The teachers briefly considered firing half the white teachers and replacing 'em with minorities, but when they asked for volunteers to resign their jobs, mysteriously they only got a dozen votes.  So they came up with another "fix:"

The board that runs the union voted to give the votes of minorities more "weight" than white votes.

The initial proposal was to count each vote by a "recognized" minority as being worth three or four white votes.  But a couple of raaacists thought this was too much, so after much emotionally-overwrought "debate"--or what passes for debate among leftists, communists and Democrats--this was scaled back to 2.5 times.

See, dis bees only fair, comrade!  It's only fair that minorities have as many votes as the majority, even if the rulers have to count minority votes more than white votes.

Ironically, we've seen this sort of thing before, in a different costume: 40 years ago the Democrats in congress ORDERED conservative southern states (i.e. states they didn't like) to draw congressional districts that would ensure that blacks would be elected to congress.  Seriously.  Critics warned that this would only ensure that those elected would turn out to be the most extreme, crazy, entitled, petulant, demanding assholes on the planet, but there's no reasoning with Democrat pols, who were absolutely sure this would win them votes.

To ensure that blacks (13% of the population) would be able to win House elections required drawing some really bizarrely-shaped district lines.  In one case a district ended up being 75 miles long but only two blocks wide in some places.  The bizarre shapes left no doubt what was being done, but Dems were proud of it and Repubs were reluctant to criticize.  The courts were fine with it.  So it was done.

Now, 40 years later, the track records of Maxine Waters (30 years in congress), Sheila Jackson-Lee (26 years in congress), Charlie Rangel (46 years in congress), Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, Ayana Pressley, Ilhan Omar and other luminaries have proven the critics right:  The "safe" districts meant candidates didn't have to win votes from both races, so the extremists won, again and again.  For the Dems it was a perfect play.

Okay, the teachers union noted above was in Ontario, Canada, which is further down the socialist road than the U.S--but not by much.  And once U.S. teachers see how well this plays, they'll be doing the same here.  Cuz among the "woke," there's always a competition to see who can be most woke.

====

A leftist website, trying to show highschool students how AWFUL it was that states once drew the boundaries of congressional districts to make them fairly compact, carelessly let it slip that drawing bizzare districts to ENSURE a minority was elected is just wonderful, thanks.

"Political gerrymandering" was the term given to the practice of drawing boundaries of congressional districts to ensure one party won more seats.  It's legal.  By contrast "racial gerrymandering" was a term given to the alleged practice by white state legislators of drawing congressional districts to ensure blacks wouldn't win seats.  (Frankly it's hard to imagine any state legislators would bother.)

In Thornburg v Gingles the Supreme Court made that illegal.  It ruled that if plaintiffs could show three things, the court would agree that racial gerrymandering had taken place--in which case the court would order the state legislature to re-draw the district.  If a minority didn't like the result, the court would re-draw the boundaries.  Neat, eh?  Here are the criteria:

1. “The minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.”
2. “The minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive.”
3. “The minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”

Now most people agree that rigging the game so minorities can't win is unfair.  But the court's RULING in Thornburg went vastly further than just blocking states from drawing district boundaries to prevent a black person from winning. The combined impact of Thornburg and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been interpreted as allowing the courts to draw boundaries to create majority-minority districts--that is, districts guaranteed to elect blacks.  And as of 2015,  122 of the 435 congressional districts were in this category.

Here's the summary that clearly shows the source totally supports gerrymandering when done to ensure blacks will be elected:

Majority-minority districts often look gerrymandered on paper [how else does one view them] because they can take odd shapes and are rarely deemed “compact.” [They're NEVER compact; that's the point.]  However, these districts serve a crucial role in representing minority communities across the country. After Thornburg many newly drawn districts in the South elected their first African American representative since Reconstruction. Since then, Congress has seen incredibly positive gains with diversity, though there is still a ways to go before it represents the country as a whole.