Some please help me understand. re:SCOTUS voting rights ruling.

[Ferrets are Cool]

If this ruling gave the states the right to redraw district lines to help repugs, why doesn't it help Democrats to redraw district lines in THEIR favor?
What am I missing or did I miss the whole damn boat?

[LeftInTX]

1. More states have GOP legislatures than Democratic states. So it favors the GOP.

Also Democratic states are more likely to have their own laws about redistricting, whereas GOP states don't.

[usonian]

2. Scrying out loud ::: Trevor sees SCOTUS voting rights ruling VERY differently (post by liberalla)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1220&pid=25262

video

He says Democrats will control the House for generations to come. He says Republicans are celebrating the decision but they're woefully unaware of what this means. He explains how and why this will benefit the Democrats.


I posted a transcript below it, because it sounded really intriguing.

https://rentry.co/5rpqg6mv

So, they haven't bothered to read the ruling, but if you read the ruling, it says you no longer need majority minority districts and that it's okay to gerrymander based on partisan

So in Illinois, for example, since there doesn't need to to be districts that are majority minority, they can break up Chicago and stretch those districts all the way to southern Illinois and Democrats can make it to where Republicans get zero seats in Illinois

Leader Jeffries has said, IIRC, that the party is going to town after this ruling, which seems to take away redistricting on basis of ethnicity and open it to everything BUT.

Others may want to comment on this.
I am way behind in everything today, as usual.

[FBaggins]

5. Trevor should probably stick to tarot card reading. The ruling was a disaster

So in Illinois, for example, since there doesn't need to to be districts that are majority minority, they can break up Chicago

Has he even looked at the current districts? Chicago is already broken up into gerrymandered districts impacting the suburbs. And Illinois likely loses two seats in the 2030 census... so there isn't much long-term gain to be had even if we could get a temporary gain. There's no "generations" to be had there.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. The big problem with people saying that the "Democrats will control the house for generations" is that

as a whole, the American people have the memories of water fleas. As soon as the price of eggs go up again because of Avian flu, while a Democratic party is in control, they will once again howl that there is no difference between the parties and will want to vote the Democrats out of power. It's happened time and time again. It will happen again.

[EdmondDantes_]

3. Because there's fewer opportunities for us to match

Not just because as others noted Republicans control more unified state legislatures, but also the impact isn't the same. Republicans dividing up majority minority districts will create more Republican districts. If we do the opposite and create more majority minority districts that would ironically increase Republicans in liberal states by pushing more reliable Democratic votes into fewer districts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. It does.

They just might not have time to get it done before the midterms due to stricter laws in those states.

Even some red states might run out of time.