[Dog Gone]

The crux of the Rats' argument is that voters, and especially minorities, are legally entitled to be represented by Democrats, and anything which changes that violates the Voting Rights Act.

It's not a very good argument.

Imagine if Republicans were trying to make the argument that minorities are required to be represented by Republicans and any redistricting which changed that was illegal. It's the same thing.

[Conservateacher]

"The crux of the Rats' argument is that voters, and especially minorities, are legally entitled to be represented by Democrats, and anything which changes that violates the Voting Rights Act."

Exactly the way I see it. Their presumption is that if minorities were living in a district represented by a Republican then they wouldn't be represented.

I live in a state-Washington- where I am represented by many democrats. Do I have representation in my state? Of course I ...OOps, I think I just blew my argument.

Actually, I do. Not the party I would like but yes I do.

[MeekOneGOP]

Imagine if Republicans were trying to make the argument that minorities are required to be represented by Republicans and any redistricting which changed that was illegal. It's the same thing.

By golly, I think you've nailed it (once again) !! ...

The 'RATS also believe that since the the first legislature after the census was unable to get the redistricting job done, that the existing map MUST remain, since it effectively keeps their Gerrymandering in operation ...

[Kuksool]

{The crux of the Rats' argument is that voters, and especially minorities, are legally entitled to be represented by Democrats, and anything which changes that violates the Voting Rights Act.}

By this logic, white relgious conservatives should be legally entitled to be represented by Republicans.