In 1982 a law fed law (and leftist judges) not only made gerrymandering legal, but *required* it

In a few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving "congressional redistricting."  The case question is whether states can be *forced by law* to "carve out" bizarrely-shaped congressional districts *solely to ensure some districts will have a  majority of black voters, or can be sued for re-drawing bizarre, narrow, wandering borders that had been drawn deliberately to enable blacks to be a majority in a district, thus to win election.

The case has huge implications, and if you give a damn about those, you need to understand what's at stake.  Let me explain:

Starting around 1960 Democrats started bleating dat it "just wuzn't FAIR" that in a handful of states where blacks were a third of the population, less than a third of their congress-creeps were black.  (And I use "congress-creeps" for white congress-creeps too.)

Of course if the boundaries of congressional districts were drawn "blindly," simply ensuring that each district has the same population, without trying to favor or disfavor any race, it wouldn't be surprising that with just one-third of the population being black, most of the time the person elected to congress wouldn't be black.

Y'know, that "democracy" the Dems constantly bleat about!  "Majority rules," right?

Democrats and the "woke" Media absolutely *hated* that totally democratic result!  And in the past, the Supreme Court sided with them.  It *just wudn't FAIR* somehow!  Here's why:

Everyone knew blacks voted Democrat by huge margins--like 90% or so (though closer to 70-30 now).  So congressional Democrats knew if they could *force states to re-draw district boundaries in weird patterns to create majority-black districts,* they'd win more seats in the House.  So a Dem-controlled congress passed the "Voting Rights Act," which had the *stated goal* of "eliminating barriers to voting."

Hey, who could object to *that,* eh?

But as the Democrats planned, leftist judges used that law to force states to re-draw congressional district boundaries in amazingly tortured shapes, specifically to create majority-black congressional districts.

So given the cover of the Narrative of "eliminating barriers to voting" in the Voting Rights Act, leftist judges ordered--in effect--"If your state doesn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as the percentage of blacks in your state, we will assume that's because your legislature *intentionally drew the congressional districts to "dilute the voting power of minorities!"*

And if state legislatures had deliberately drawn congressional districts to exclude blacks, I agree. 

But no such evidence was ever found.  Ever.  Randomly-drawn district boundaries--like big squares--would almost always have more whites than blacks, reflecting the percentage of the population in the entire state, eh?   

So since no one could find any evidence that district boundaries had been drawn with malice (see previous paragraph), Democrats invented a new legal theory: "disparate results" (a variation of "disparate impact")  As the name implies, this theory claims that if one racial group has a different result in *anything,* the gruberment and the courts would *automatically assume* that result was due to raaaaacism--even if there was no evidence of discriminatory intent!

That's so Orwellian--so crazy--that you probably didn't get it.

Imagine the courts adopting the legal theory that all men are rapists, who must then prove their innocence.  Wow.

Seriously.  If you don't believe me, Google it.  Here's the bribem DOJ's policy:
>>The essence of a "discriminatory results" claim alleging *vote dilution* is that a certain state law, practice, or structure *interacts with social and historical conditions* to [produce] an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by minority voters to elect their preferred representatives.">>

This is carefully disguised baffle-gab, designed to hide the real meaning, which is: "If we don't get the same percentage of black congress-creeps as our percentage of the population, *the courts will automatically assume it's a violation of minority voting rights!"*

Oh, I hear some of my Dem friends saying this is a lie, that no prezzy would evah sign such a piece of shit bill into law.  Really? Here's AI's summary:
>>Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,
  The core of Section 2 is the "results test," established by Congress in 1982, which prohibits any voting practice that results in a discriminatory *effect, *regardless* of whether a discriminatory intent can be proven.*>>

If you didn't grasp that last phrase, read it again.  Believing me yet?   And the courts have been exploiting that actual LAW since 1982!

This is literally how the communists wrote laws, so they could control all the results.  You wouldn't think it could possibly happen here, eh?  Yet not only DID it happen here, this has been the LAW for 43 years!

More AI horseshit:
>>Key provisions and legal standards of Section 2
   *A violation is established* [boom!] if, based on the "totality of the circumstances," a voting practice is shown to provide minority voters *with less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.*
   "Vote dilution" is a key focus of Section 2.  It and involves any electoral practice that *minimizes the voting strength of racial or language minority groups. Common forms of vote dilution include:
  [bullet points]
    Cracking: Splitting a minority community among multiple districts to prevent them from forming a voting majority in any single district.
    Packing: Concentrating minority voters into a small number of districts to minimize their influence in other areas.>>

Wait, you cunning rat-bastards...those two things are opposites: first one DECREES that splitting minority voters into different districts is illegal, while the second bitches that drawing district boundaries to "concentrate minority voters into a small number of districts" is illegal.  But of course that's exactly what the then-Dem-majority Supreme Court ORDERED! 

Note also that despite the law clearly wailing about "packing," that's exactly what Democrat legislatures did, to comply with the REAL threats from leftist judges: they drew bizarre, wandering boundaries explicitly to produce "majority-minority" districts to ensure more black congress-critters would be elected.  That was the *entire* reason for the weirdly-drawn boundaries.

So which is it, lying, cunning Democrats?  Pick one.  You claim to believe in majority rule, but forced state legislatures to draw weird district boundaries to create majority-black districts."  Of course doing that *deliberately disfavors the white majority in the entire state,* but that's just fine, cuz it helps the Democrat party. 

And sure enough, back when the Supreme Court had a liberal majority it ordered states to draw congressional districts to produce "majority-minority districts."

Here's what AI says about that:
>>AI Overview
  A majority-minority district is a [congressional] district...where a racial minority group is a majority of the population.
   This is intended to prevent the dilution of minority voting power and to give minority groups an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. *The creation of these districts is governed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.*>>

<<Believin' me yet?  No, you're probably not, for two reasons:  First, you literally can't believe the Democrats would be so hypocritical as to bleat that dey luuuvs democracy, but then junk that theory to win more power for themselves.  (Actually that's not at all hard to believe.)
    Second--and harder to believe: you can't believe the Supreme Court would actually rule that this piece of shit LAW--rammed thru by Democrats--was constitutional.

Anti-democratic as hell, but because Dems wanted this result, and controlled *everything,* they got their way.  They screamed that drawing districts blindly was "vote dilution."  The case was Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), and the majority-liberal Supreme Court RULED that minority plaintiffs would win if they could show:

    * The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically concentrated to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
    * The minority group tends to vote similarly.
    * The majority group votes as a bloc to consistently defeat the minority group's preferred candidates.

It couldn't possibly be more clear: First, ALL congressional districts are "single-member," so that's just camouflage; horseshit.  Then the court continues: When the "minority group" "tends to vote similarly" that's peachy, but when the "majority group votes as a bloc" that's awful, terrible, anti-democratic!

Starting to see the Orwellian, communist horseshit here yet?

And we're just getting started, cupcake.  The court also cites Section 2 as addressing "practices that directly make it harder for minorities to vote," like having to prove your identity with a photo  ID, or "restrictions on absentee voting that disproportionately affect minority voters."  That shit is so vague that any attorney could make the case--even with such absurd arguments as "Some of my clients might *possibly* not read well enough to understand written instructions for submitting absentee ballots, like having witness signatures.  So states mus' not reject their ballots jus' cuz dey may not understand duh requirements!"

See how infinitely flexible "disparate results" arguments are?  

And again, we're just getting started:  the amended law established a test called "Totality of circumstances," which allowed the courts to consider factors never shown in a given case, such as "a history of official voting discrimination, *racially polarized voting,* and "the lingering effects of past discrimination that hinder political participation." 

For those unfamiliar with U.S. law: If a defendant on trial for selling illegal drugs has been convicted of that same crime a dozen times before, prosecutors aren't allowed to mention that in court because it might bias jurors to assume he's guilty regardless of the evidence in the current case.  Well-known principle.  But the Voting Rights Act, rammed thru by Dems in congress--allowed plaintiffs to use a history of past discrimination to *imply* current discrimination.  Hmmm...

The contradictions in the VRA are so glaring and numerous that some legal experts predict the Supreme Court will overturn Section 2.  I doubt the court will do that, but what do I know, eh?

Here's what the DOJ website says about Section 2:
>>In 1980 the Supreme Court held that Section 2, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, [required] a plaintiff to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.
  But in 1982 Congress amended Section 2 so a plaintiff could claim a violation of the [law] if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the practice being challenged had the result of denying a racial minority *an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.*>>

What that says--though *cunningly, deliberately disguised,* to avoid outraging normal Americans--is that groups suing states, claiming racial discrimination (but only against the minority) didn't need to prove any intent.  Instead the test was now "if it had the *result* of denying..."  In other words, showing a disparate result was all that was needed for the courts to order a state to gerrymander a district to favor blacks..

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/1429826/dl?inline

To summarize:  Back in the 1980s the Media and courts and congress was seized by "white guilt"--the beginnings of the wokie mania--and junked longstanding pillars of U.S. law in their eagerness to atone.  *Following the amendment to the original VRA,* the Supreme Court back then held that states would be deemed to violate the Act if there was a "disparate result."  At that point the "professional victim industry" saw their opportunity and ran with it. 

And recall that many of the cases were settled, with big paydays for  the plaintiffs' attorneys.  Wow, who could have predicted that, eh?