The Voting Rights Act is Illegal Racial Gerrymandering

Why is Gerrymandering permitted?

Because the political power to do so is in the structure of the Constitution.

Who would enforce a “no Gerrymandering” rule? There is no reason to believe whoever did so would be subject to fewer political pressures than there are currently.

“whether black people can be represented by representatives from other races, and whether the same is true for all of America’s other racial, ethnic and religious groups”

The so-called “hispanics” jumped on the bandwagon early and even Richard Nixon got on board by creating the hispanic cohort as a protected class.

This is why we now districts in all the Southwestern states rigged to elect a Mexican. Essentially they are saying that these are people who form separate nations - like Indian tribes - and the courts are requiring that they have their own representation.

We’re not the UN. It’s supposed to be the US. And Mexico is not one of the States.

When a black woman could get elected senator of IL many decades ago and a black man got elected a president twice, the justification of affirmative action and gerrymandering to guarantee minorities can have representative ceased to exist.

Thank you for referencing that article MtnClimber.

"The Voting Rights Act is Illegal Racial Gerrymandering"

As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.

The bottom line regarding voting rights issues is that such "rights" are a Trojan Horse front-end for stealing elections imo.

More specifically, the very corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties that have pirated control of state and federal governments are fighting to protect the 16th Amendment (16A; direct taxes) so that the deep state Congress can continue to spend taxpayer dollars for things that it cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, most federal taxes arguably stolen state revenues (citizens' wallets).

Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)

The 16th Amendment is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime imo, and desperately needs to be repealed.

Regarding constitutionally justified federal spending, let's consider what can be referred to as the Madison test, named after President James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.

The Madison test for a federal spending bill originated as follows imo. When the 14th Congress had found existing tax revenues, lawmakers decided to use it to start building roads and canals, basing the resulting Bonus Bill of 1817 solely on the General Welfare Clause, (GWC; 1.8.1).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [emphasis added], to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

But even though Madison agreed with Congress that infrastructure spending would be beneficial, he also explained that regardless that GWC gave Congress the power to appropriate revenues, the clauses following GWC in Section 8 limit what Congress can spend tax dollars for.

Note that the Bonus Bill didn't even pass the wild card "Necessary and Proper" Clause test according to Madison.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill

Getting rid of 16A will basically make Trump's legacy of draining the swamp permanent imo. It's up to Trump's red tsunami of supporters, evidenced by his record-breaking win in 2024', to make the repeal of 16A the main talking point of the 2026 primaries.

Patriots need to primary all state and federal lawmakers who refuse to publicly promise to support a referendum to the states to repeal that amendment in January 2027.

Otherwise, because of the short-term memories of post-17th Amendment ratification voters imo, Harris can probably still eventually steal the Oval Office so that elite Democrats and RINOs can continue to abuse 16A.

Gerrymandering is a symptom, the cancer of overweening government is the disease.

The Party of the Rat despises our Constitution because it seeks Freedom and Equality whereas the 'Ratz seek privilege and advantage.

The Second Amendment is our chemotherapy.