Talk:Gerrymandering in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MorrisAshford.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Negative Racial Gerrymandering" is a made up term
I'm getting fairly sick of overzealous contributors at wikipedia trying to invent terms out of whole cloth just to see if it takes. There are ***6*** google results for the term, and one of them is wikipedia itself.

Unless a more sensible reference is conjured up, I am going to delete that reference entirely.Tgm1024 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a term in the redistricting literature, and it refers to a discrete concept. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerrymandering in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208155829/http://projects.palmbeachpost.com/yourvote/ballot_question/florida/2010/amendment-5-and-6-2010/ to http://projects.palmbeachpost.com/yourvote/ballot_question/florida/2010/amendment-5-and-6-2010/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://riredistricting.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Violations of WP:POV
I have removed an excellent illustration from the article for its blatant violation of WP:POV. This article should never use the word "steal" to describe gerrymandering, because there are a great many people that consider it to be perfectly acceptable political gamemanship. But then, on top of that, the diagram (which was really well done; much like one I created for my own classroom) showed two parties, Blue and Red (gee, I wonder what parties those colors could represent), and showed that Blue had a majority of voters yet Red "stole" the election and got a majority of the seats. Yes, this is how gerrymandering works. But, despite the current Republican superiority in successfully implementing gerrymandering, the practice has a long and sordid past conducted equally by both parties, and the Democrats have just as often abused their majorities in state legislatures to do this as have Republicans. Yet we have the aforementioned diagram showing Republicans using Gerrymandering, another example from a Republican-created map in North Carolina showing gerrymandering, and a Republican-created map from Texas showing gerrymandering. It would not be too big a surprise if a casual reader came away from this article thinking that gerrymandering is a Republican created monster, despite the fact that Democrats have been gerrymandering since before the Republican Party even existed. Un sch  ool  03:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "This article should never use the word 'steal' to describe gerrymandering, because there are a great many people that consider it to be perfectly acceptable political gamemanship." You will need some citations to back that up. Have you considered looking up Gerrymandering on Wikipedia? Be sure to make a note of the image being used. In the meantime, I will simply recommend that you self-revert. The image is WP:DUE. Also, if it is just an issue of color for you (pun), I can tell you this has already been discussed in previous Talk Pages here. There is already a different color version on wiki-commons, ready to go. Either way, I'd ask that you do some research. DN (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain how WP:DUE is pertinent here. I'm no longer an active editor, but IIRC, WP:DUE is concerned with the unnecessary inclusion of fringe points of view.  Are you saying that the Republican Party (which is being maligned by the choice of illustrations) is "fringe"?  You can disagree with it all you want (as do I) but it's hardly "fringe".
 * If you don't believe that gerrymandering is "acceptable" to some, ask yourself why the Supreme Court has never banned the practice. Yes, it has restricted it, and is likely to do so even more this year.  But both parties practice it, so both parties apparently consider it acceptable.  I taught a college-level course on American government back in the 1980s and while bemoaning gerrymandering was as common then as it is today, few out-and-out said it should be banned.  Of course, the movement to stop gerrymandering is certainly gaining steam, but not (this is just my opinion) out of principle, but because of the fact that one party has simply gotten too good at it.  If the Democrats had pulled off over the past 20 years what the GOP has done, the Republicans would be as enthusiastic about ending the practice as Democrats are now.
 * I do not have a dog in this fight. I am not a Republican; I am an independent who votes for both parties as the occasion merits (or neither, as last November merited)  So let me ask you, can you not at least acknowledge that the use of "steal" is a violation of WP:POV?  Stealing is illegal, gerrymandering is not.  I will not self-revert, if for that reason alone. If, as you say, there is an alternative map available, I would like the name of the file so that I can view it and proffer my opinion in this discussion.  Un  sch  ool  06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added the alternate image back into the article. Your issue with "the color" is now resolved. As far as your opinion on whether or not the use of the word "steal" is "appropriate", I will direct you to WP:SUBJECTIVE "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia...". Obviously this image is not in Wikipedia's voice, but in it's publisher's. It is WP:RS. Do some more research, and please stop trying to bring political opinions into the discussion. No one asked about your personal political knowledge, ideology or affiliation etc... That stuff is entirely irrelevant here. DN (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the gesture, though I am puzzled by your handling of the word color. You once noted that there was a pun involved in my complaint about color (Also, if it is just an issue of color for you (pun)); I know of no one who loves puns as much as I do, but I do not see the pun here.  Because this statement of yours makes no sense to me, it makes me wonder if you understand my position.  Similar is your use of what are commonly called scare quotes (Your issue with "the color" is now resolved.); what on earth was the reason for placing that in quotes?  Again, I wonder if we're speaking the same language here.


 * Anyway, while I do appreciate that you've changed this to the neutral green-yellow color scheme, I hasten to remind you that I said my primary concern was with the use of the word "steal". Stealing is an illegal activity.  Gerrymandering is not.  The gerrymandering diagram would be just as effective without the title "How to Steal an Election"; in fact, it would be more effective as one would not be distracted by the unnecessary POV of the word "steal".


 * You write, As far as your opinion on whether or not the use of the word "steal" is "appropriate", I will direct you to WP:SUBJECTIVE"There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia.". Who ever suggested that there were "forbidden words on Wikipedia"?  I did not say that, but your statement implies falsely that I did.  Of course there are no forbidden words.  But we are nonetheless prohibited from using words in certain contexts.  If I was to add to the article on a given movie star that "he is a completely incompetent actor, and ugly besides", would that statement be allowed to stand because, as you say, there are "no forbidden words"?  Of course it would not be allowed, because it would need the support of some seriously reliable sources.  What about this diagram?  You write above, "this image is not in Wikipedia's voice, but in it's publisher's. It is WP:RS."  Really?  And what reliable source is this?  This image was created by someone using a Wikimedia user account named Stevenass.  So it's not, as you claim, from a "publisher".  It's from a Wikimedia user, an editor who had made exactly ONE edit, that edit being the creation of the image (see ).  And who exactly is this Stevenass?  Who the heck knows?  Linkedin lists at least ten persons named Steve Nass .  The White Pages lists over 100  persons named Steve Nass.  Interestingly, while Steve Nass has only one edit to his entire history, you have at least three edits based upon derivations of this map.  So you certainly appear to have a vested interest on the use of this diagram.


 * You have provided, what appears to me to be, a weak case for including this diagram as currently constituted. You claim it meets WP:RS, but it clearly does not.  You claim there are "no forbidden words" on Wikipedia, which no one is contesting.  But if your interpretation of "no forbidden words" were to actually hold true, it would render both WP:BLP and WP:POV null and void.  (Hey, after all, if there are "no forbidden words", then someone can write about a United States Senator and allege that he eats horse feces for breakfast.  No forbidden words!)  So in the interest of not starting an edit war, I am going to leave your current version in place, for the moment.  If you can come up with a version of the diagram that does not have that title (and really, with captions available, why is a title necessary at all?), then I will let this go.  Otherwise, we will bring in other people to examine your interesting ideas about Wikipedia policies.  Either way, I'd ask that you do some research.  Un  sch  ool  05:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is a file that I uploaded for the Gerrymandering article. I'll happily edit it to make it better:
 * I think DN's green/yellow color scheme shows up much better.
 * The fonts aren't rendering nicely in my browser in the thumb.
 * I think I'd change the label on the top two diagrams to be

Disproportionate Outcomes: “Gerrymandering”
 * But generally, what do people think? M.boli (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Either I'm color blind or you've mislabeled the colors, also I see only 2 colors instead of the 3 mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.133.188 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I like what you've got there. I do agree with you that DN's yellow-green color scheme is superior. but your labels are more acceptable.  I'd say go ahead and do it, but we should wait to hear what others have to say.  One question is, do we need all the maps?  I'd say yes; it explains more, but I'd also be okay with the three maps that the article has currently.  Un  sch  ool  06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you've altered it way too much. DN (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said in my post, "do we need all the maps?". I'm certainly fine with only having the three maps in your version, DN (and as we both stated, your color scheme was much better).  The important thing is to have gotten rid of the POV language in the title.  Un  sch  ool  12:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This POV claim of yours still makes no sense. "because there are a great many people that consider it to be perfectly acceptable political gamemanship."...And? I guess that's why it's so popular, oh wait, no it isn't. How is your search for citations to back that up, going? Have you read the first paragraph in the lead of the Gerrymandering article? It says, "The term gerrymandering has negative connotations.". While that may not constitute "stealing" it certainly doesn't help your case. DN (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I concede that I spoke too broadly when making that statement (about a 'great many people'). You're right, on the whole, gerrymandering has negative connotations, despite the fact that both parties have practiced it without being stopped by the Supreme Court for over 200 years.  So, yes, a large majority of typical Americans would agree that it's a sucko practice.  But that has nothing to do with whether or not this violates WP:POV.  POV violations are not determined by the number of people whose ox is being gored.  Most people think that Richard Nixon was a bad president and a crooked politician.  There's a bigger consensus on that that on gerrymandering, I'd wager.  But that doesn't mean that you can write in Richard Nixon that "Nixon had the ugliest face of any 20th century President".  It's an opinion (one that I'd agree with) that has not been substantiated by any WP:RS.  And taking a picture of Nixon, submitting it to Wikimedia Commons with a title, "Ugliest 20th Century President" does not constitute the publication of a reliable source.


 * But let's take something closer to the example at hand. The 2000 Presidential election is a case where, like gerrymandering, many people would use "stealing an election" to describe what happened.  Yet in Bush v. Gore, an article of over 5000 words, and United States presidential election, 2000, an article of around 9000 words, there is not a single appearance of the word "steal", "stole", or "stolen".  You know why?  Because that would violate WP:NPOV.


 * So having conceded that irrelevant point to you, might I point out that you used that post to dodge the issues that I had laid out in my previous posts?
 * Your argument about "no forbidden words" holds no water.
 * Your attempt to apply WP:DUE is not material here (unless you consider the state legislatures and the Supreme Court to be insignificant fringe sources).
 * And, most importantly, your attempt to say that the diagram in question constitutes a reliable source is nonsense, as it is the original work of an unknown editor who has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia or the Commons.


 * A reminder, the the policy reads:
 * All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.


 * Labeling a perfectly legal (if distasteful) practice as "stealing" is clearly prejudicial and loaded with editorial bias. All I'm asking now is for the label to be changed to something genuinely neutral, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why you are so determined to fight that modest request.  Un  sch  ool  04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Today somebody uploaded a new version using colors that are more distinguishable by colorblind people. But they didn't change the text, which still refers to yellow and green. I will probably fix this up in the next day or so. -- M.boli (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Politifact
Maybe useful:NC GOP: a gerrymander is 'a strange looking monster drawing' Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Arrangement of headings: Sorry about that!
Thank you for accepting my revision. I garbled the edit summaries something fierce, which I think created confusion. Explaining it on the talk page would have been better. M.boli (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Map - U.S. congressional districts covering Travis County, Texas (outlined in red)
Hi

This map is very confusing.

The red outline is explained, but NOT the orange-brown region, the sandy coloured region, or why the yellow bit shrank so much!

I really tried to understand how this was restructured, but without any idea of what the colours mean, it is not possible.

Can someone PLEASE put some info explaining it, or something to point to where it is explained in the body of the article?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Misleading (or wrong) description of proportional voting systems
Some of the paragraph about proportional voting systems is misleading or even wrong. "[N]o districts are present" and "break the strong constituency link" don't consider systems like the one used for example in Germany; see Mixed-member proportional representation.

Maybe something like "In these systems, the party that gets, for example, 30 percent of the votes gets roughly 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. Although it is common for European states to have more than two parties, the American two-party system could be maintained by implementing a sufficiently high election threshold. A strong constituency link through district-based voting is a cornerstone of current American politics. While some proportional voting systems break this link by eliminating the dependency of individual representatives on a concrete electorate, others maintain the link by combining district-based voting with a proportional element."

Not sure how to go about editing... this is my first edit. I'm putting this out here for a bit for feedback before actually editing the page.

--Ge375 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment! I put mention of this in this section but you're welcome to rephrase it as you think would improve organization here! So many possibilities it's hard to adequately describe them! Reywas92Talk 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this more than a personal opinion?
A recent edit added this sentence:

> Democrats have been masters of gerrymandering since the beginning of The United States.

It comes without source and to me sounds like nothing more than an opinion. Should this be reverted?

Ge375 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Without a reliable source, and likely without inline attribution of that source, yes it is, and should be reverted. That's both OR and NPOV without the sourcing. --M asem (t) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral? Unbiased?
...and yet no mention of the KKK, Democrat party usage against African Americans, and the enabling of Jim Crow laws. This is why I never contribute to Wikipedia, never trust it, and actively counter-reference it. If you allow political advocacy for one party, then you have no integrity really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.148.216 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your point being? How about you suggest some well-sourced edits? If you never contribute, how can you expect that things you know are represented? --Ge375 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works, but I'm happy to put you on the right path. Start with reading List of policies and guidelines, while using Manual of Style. DN (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Data to update the "Redistricting commissions" section with
See here: https://twitter.com/ryan_dane/status/1333614785670344704. There is updated data and a thorough list of which states have what kinds of redistricting, as well as the criteria they use for redistricting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed?
I think this section needs rewriting and sources but don't want to remove it entirely. "Gerrymandering can also recreate districts with the aim of maximizing the number of racial minorities to assist particular nominees, who are minorities themselves. In some other cases that have the same goal of diluting the minority vote, the districts are reconstructed in a way that packs minority voters into a smaller or limited number of districts." Particularly the line "to assist particular nominees, who are minorities themselves" needs to be changed as not only minority nominees benefit from this and they aren't the ones always doing it. HostileArchitecture (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Racial gerrymandering - affirmative
In regard to this edit, the context removed appears necessary in explaining the details and scope of the changes, and falls within the purview of what this subject and section are trying to convey. The part removed is listed below. "'While the Equal Protection Clause, along with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibit jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor racial groups. The Supreme Court first recognized these 'affirmative racial gerrymandering' claims in Shaw v. Reno...'" The edit summary... "focus on the issue of this section "affirmative gerrymandering" (which in the end is the same as diluting gerrymandering))" ...does not seem to explain why or how it's removal improves focus. DN (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur, this is good to have. Reywas92Talk 02:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But "gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups" is exactly the topic of the preceding section. It should be cpvered there. Str1977 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like WP:SYNTH. "the same as diluting gerrymandering"....Do you have any citations that explicitly back this up? If so, please list them here. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How can keeping two kinds of gerrymandering in different sections - which was what my edit has done - be SYNTH? Str1977 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your statement in the edit summary - sorry, i should have made that clearer. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted this change, as there is currently no consensus to remove cited content that we feel is relevant to the context of this section. DN (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the Tom Delay Mention
Here is the section where the editor removed cited content... "In the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court upheld on June 28, 2006, most of a Texas congressional map suggested in 2003 by former United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and enacted by the state of Texas. The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). In his dissenting opinion in LULAC v. Perry, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, quoted Bill Ratliffe, former Texas lieutenant governor and member of the Texas state senate saying, 'political gain for the Republicans was 110% the motivation for the plan,' and argued that a plan whose 'sole intent' was partisan could violate the Equal Protection Clause. This was notable as previously Justice Stevens had joined Justice Breyer's opinion in Easley v. Cromartie, which held that explicitly partisan motivation for gerrymanders was permissible and a defense against claims of racial gerrymandering. Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared one congressional district unconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority." Now that we have the whole thing in front of us we can examine it closer and try to come to consensus...DN (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

citation
Here is the first relevant portion I see... A DeLay-backed plan Following constitutional mandate, states are required to redraw their congressional districts every 10 years, in line with population changes. After the 2000 census, a state court redrew the Texas map with input from state lawmakers. But after DeLay helped Republicans gain control of the state legislature in 2002, he promoted a second redistricting proposal for congressional boundaries. The Texas legislature adopted the plan in 2003 after three contentious special sessions called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. Angry Democratic legislators left the sessions twice en masse, denying the GOP a quorum to proceed. DeLay ultimately helped negotiate a redistricting plan that won approval but was quickly challenged in court by Democrats and several minority rights groups. The newly drawn districts helped Republicans gain a majority of the state's 32 congressional seats. Before the 2004 elections, the GOP held 15 seats; it now has 21. Opponents challenging the redistricting plan alleged it moved 8 million people into new districts, and relied on inaccurate census data. Republicans countered the plan was a legitimate exercise in legislative authority, and the changes led to the 2004 election of a Democratic African-American, Rep. Gene Green, who joined African-Americans Eddie Bernice Johnson and Sheila Jackson Lee in the Texas congressional delegation.

More citations regarding Delay and Gerrymandering: NBC 2005 - WaPo 2018 - Current mention on the article 2003 Texas redistricting - Austin Chronicle 2019 - L.A. Times 2006....DN (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are totally missing the point. I am not disputing that DeLay is relevant to the legislation he supported, introduced and that was eventually passed. And that's all your sources support.
 * But this is not the article on that legislation but on gerrymandering in general.
 * However, if you insist to mention him here can we at least have a shorter way of doing it without the circumstantial "former United States House Majority Leader". If any qualifier needs to be given at all, shouldn't it refer to what DeLay was when he suggested the legislation?
 * More importantly, you are also reverting in another problematic wording, which I will address in a new section.
 * Str1977 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We want to work towards consensus with you. What do you have in mind? Could you show us so we can compare to the original text above? Cheers. DN (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Court allowing gerrymandering
Recent reverts have reverted back in a wording that is pushing POV:

"The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like ..."

I don't think the court explicitely allowed gerrymandering (instead of just redistricting) as gerrymandering is defined as the manipulative, partisan form of redistricting. Whatever one thinks of the decision, bad decisions usually do not openly allow abuses.

Of course, one can criticize this as in effect allowing gerrymandering - and WP can report (not endorse) that criticism - but it misattribute that word to the court unless the ourt decision explicitely referred to gerrymandering in a positive, allowing way. Str1977 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We say what sources say. Please take a look at the citation. AGF is relative here. Changes require consensus, this can be perceived as edit warring without consensus, no offense. DN (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have tagged this section in good faith for you, hopefully this helps move the discussion along. Please stop making these kinds of changes without consensus. I do not want to drag in an admin over a content dispute or edit warring because they have better things to do. DN (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Another instance which may shed some background as to why this isn't so much POV as it is actual precedent is this Supreme Court: Federal judges cannot block gerrymandering - BBC 2019... SCOTUS has essentially said gerrymandering is OK via state law, or that they did not feel it was up to them. This does not mean it is illegal, so for us to take it in the direction that it is "illegal" may be leaning into SYNTH a bit too much, possibly WP:OR. Currently, gerrymandering appears legal, as a means for which states can govern themselves via the incumbent political party's ability to draw legislative maps for voters. DN (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "We say what sources say."
 * Well, does the court decision say that "gerrymandering" is allowed? Or did it allow redistricting practices that others call gerrymandering?
 * That is the crux of the matter!
 * Sources, like the one cited, are not bound by WP's NPOV policy. WP however is. Str1977 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to understand your argument. It essentially does. Here is another example. Merrill v. Milligan. DN (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Shaw v. Reno (cited in-line the section which you are contesting) also mentions gerrymandering in the context of the courts decision. If you want to consider how many other citations and sources in that section use the word "Gerrymandering" or some other iteration of the word, to describe what the court's decision does, that's fine. I still don't see the problem. DN (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My argument is really not that hard to understand. Claims that the court allowed for "gerrymandering" must be sourced to the mentioned court decision (not any other) and thus far you haven't quoted anything. Str1977 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying your argument isn't hard to understand doesn't make it any less confusing. It sounds like you are saying that unless the court "says" gerrymandering explicitly, we can't say it, which is completely false. We are saying what the sources say, not using a direct quote as far as I know. See :
 * "(this is not a quote from one of the justices, and it doesn't need to be, as it is cited) -->The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). In his dissenting opinion in LULAC v. Perry, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, quoted Bill Ratliffe, former Texas lieutenant governor and member of the Texas state senate saying, 'political gain for the Republicans was 110% the motivation for the plan,' and argued that a plan whose 'sole intent' was partisan could violate the Equal Protection Clause. This was notable as previously Justice Stevens had joined Justice Breyer's opinion in Easley v. Cromartie, which held that explicitly partisan motivation for gerrymanders was permissible and a defense against claims of racial gerrymandering. Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared one congressional district unconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority."
 * This is not a "quote", but it's what sources say...You can perhaps take it to WP:RSN, but I'm afraid I don't think I can make it any clearer for now. I do not agree that a quote is required for properly cited, sourced, contextualized and quite relevant content. DN (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My point is: unless the court explicitely says that "gerrymandering" is okay, the court is not saying it. Rather it would be critics of the decision (minority opinion or media) pointing out (with or without merit) that this in effect okays gerrymandering. It is the basic confusion of opinions with facts. So it's not about requiring a quote per se but requiring it for what the article is currently claiming - which is not "contextualized and quite relevant content" but, if there is no basis in the court's decision opinion masking as fact.
 * The passage in question uses two verbs when one would suffice. "redraw districts" is a factual observation while "gerrymander" (at least) carries with it a whole bag of judgements of being wrongful, partisan, manipulative.
 * Str1977 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel as though I understand your argument well enough, and I still disagree we need to move the goal post to exclude the term (which this entire article is about btw) and say "unless the court explicitly says the word "gerrymander" we can't say it". That requirement in and of itself seems a bit POVish and not in line with Wiki policy. Expecting the court to explicitly use the word "gerrymander" is not required in this context, as we are not quoting the court. There is of course a difference between the words "redraw", "redistricting" and "gerrymandering". They are not the same, but it seems by your definition, they are somehow interchangeable, which they are not. To paraphrase the source, it says that by the court allowing states to "redraw" or "redistrict" in any way they see fit they are allowing gerrymandering to continue. This is backed up by the current consensus among citations from reliable sources. Again, if you wish to question the sources at RSN, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I suggest we remove the POV tag at this point. DN (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Gerry and Washington D.C. the ultimate Urodela?
Elbridge Gerry was the first to legislatively suggest the location of our national capital. Was suggesting it on the border of Virginia, and Maryland due to ulterior motives? Democratic to suggest a capital so askew from the major population centers? According to this article Gerry "personally disapproved of the practice". And as indicted in my source above he also suggested Trenton.

Should a section be created about D.C? Philfromwaterbury (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

New York Court of Appeals tosses out districts created by Democrats
In 2022, the New York State Court of Appeals threw out the map created by the Democrats and created a less gerrymandered map. This is not reflected in the map at the top of the article. It is not clear to me if the articles map should be changed to reflect the fact that the Democrats did not control redistricting in New York state. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/18/us/politics/nyc-neighborhood-congressional-districts.html Tail Hook TailHook (talk 17:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication
— Assignment last updated by Zayanmoses (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)