I read very well and pointed out your own post which leads to the exact conclusion I drew.
Perhaps if you could write better you would get your point across without misunderstanding.
No, I’m talking about the fact that you seem possessed with discussing things that you don’t know anything about.
Hayworth was essentially districted out of his seat by a state legislature that was controlled by Republicans, and whose leadership at the time was known to be both “moderate” and hostile to him. A federal court isn’t likely to give a rip one way or another, unless the redistricting proposal was cutting down on minority-majority seats, which it wasn’t. Therefore, your argument 9as usual) falls flat on its face.
So once again, the problem lies with you, not me.
Frankly, I still can’t see why this is so important to you anywise.