Discussion about this post

User's avatar
sean anderson's avatar

The great irony back in 1992, when the Supreme Court upheld “minority-majority” redistricting demanded by Democrat controlled state governments, was that the resulting gerrymandering (especially in the South where most of these districts were created) helped the GOP take control of the House in the 1994 elections. I know this is counter-intuitive but here is the explanation: while redrawing the lines to create districts in which blacks or Hispanics formed a majority would likely win the Democrat a few new seats the effect of corralling ( dare we say segregating?) minority voters was that those voters were taken OUT of their former districts. Often races are won or lost by margins of voters. So in effect for every minority-majority district created three to four more lily-white districts were created whose white majorities were less likely to swing to the Democrats. This put the Democrats in an awkward dilemma: they could not in future renounce their backing for creating minority-majority districts without offending minority sympathies but the underlying math tended to favor the GOP. A good example of the law of unintended consequences.

Expand full comment
Jon Settlemeyer's avatar

I thought all this began in the '60s with Gerry Manders as the beaver.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts