Are We Catastrophizing About Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act?

/

I agree that we should make ethical judgments about issues of public policy. And I even agree that there is a time and a place to hurl slogans and jeremiads. But I also hold the—apparently eccentric—view that ethical judgments and jeremiads are best preceded by trying actually to understand a complex situation. 

Let us agree, at least for the sake of this discussion, that the majority opinion in the recent Supreme Court case on the Voting Rights Act was wrongly decided, deeply flawed as a matter of law, and reflected all manner of ethical shortcomings on the part of the Republican majority. 

That still leaves a lot of questions. One would be whether there is any moral/political/practical difference between 1) gerrymandering a lot of Black Louisianans into a weirdly shaped congressional district, as was formerly thought to be required by the Voting Rights Act, see below, versus

2) dissecting the city of Memphis into thirds, and then putting each third into a majority White district, as the Tennessee Legislature did last week. 

An even bigger question is whether the Republican redistricting effort has or has not been too clever by half, as argued by commentator Jonathan Martin in the video. His article may be found at https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/05/11/trump-gop-redistricting-warning-00913677

A contrasting voice—and one very much worth listening to—is that of Mara Gay, a biracial woman, distinguished journalist, and member of the New York Times Editorial Board. 

I commend this video to your thoughtful attention. 

Redistricting: Team Red Can’t Find Its Ass with Both Hands

I’ll leave the fine details to the experts, but here is the gist. If Team Red—or, of course, Team Blue—finds itself with a lot of extremely safe congressional districts, the partisan redistricting may be accomplished by spreading out those partisan voters, so that the team has somewhat fewer safe seats and a larger number of seats that it’s going to win by, say, only five percent or so. 

That works just fine if you can accurately predict which way the political win will be blowing, come next election. But what happens if the political wind starts blowing against you? 

If, let’s say, the wind unexpectedly blows against you—let’s say by seven percent in favor of Team Blue—then your bunch of five percent wins turn into a bunch of two percent losses. And you have well and truly shot yourself in the foot. 

You will recognize this situation as a corollary of the general rule that the straight edge ruler is not your best tool for short term and long term planning.

Down in Texas, Team Red—having partaken generously of Trump’s Kool-Aid—thinks that Orange Man’s popularity in the Lone Star State will continue from strength. In particular, they think the Latino community is overjoyed by the ICE arrests, and will reward Mango Mussolini in 2026 by increasing their support in congressional districts bordering on the Rio Grande. 

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, His Most High Excellency has declared today that he will order his “Justice Department” to sue California for retaliatory redistricting on the part of Team Blue.

The Very Stable Genius did not, however, articulate a coherent legal principle that would condemn Team Blue in California while, at the same time, blessing Team Red’s efforts in Texas.