Gerrymandering Explained: Charlie Brown Analogy | The Joy Reid Show

But Joy, is anyone putting together coalitions of pro bono lawyers and paralegals and donors with money to help people GET their birth certificates, passports, voter IDs, voter registrations, mail in ballot forms and even volunteers to drive people to the polls??
We need to consolidate measures to help those precious individual votes especially get the nearly impossible ID these NEOCONFEDERACY bastards are already racing to CONTRO and suppress us with!
Please join with other media hosts to rapidly get this strategy out everywhere.
Our lives, our Country and the lives of our children and future children are literally now at stake!
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙

And black folks has always come out ahead , it's nothing new to what they do.

Didn’t democrats just get caught funding The KKK through the Southern Poverty Center? Why yes. Yes they did.

Who are these people who tries to control everyone else?

The way you explained it Ms Reid made it plain and you 🫵🏽 kept it simple. A child would understand your meaning. Love 🥰your analogy. Thank you 🫵🏽 a million times and over.😉🥰

Strategery? Fake words to help make a fake argument.
You don't create districts based on race. You get one vote. Thats it.
Democrats invented gerrymandering and now its coming back to bite them just like bodycams on cops.

And THIS IS WHY they don't like or want SMART BLACK WOMEN in power!!!! CLARITY!!!!!!!!! Dayuuuuuum Joy. You did that!!!! 👏🏿😍👏🏿😍👏🏿🔥👏🏿

U right

Keep telling it to them Joy thy as a people have to get it 🙏 and just do it 😅😂

Thank You Joy. Bless You For All Of Your Hard work. And Sharing Knowledge To Our Survival in this country 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ Take Care.

I’m still confused. Why would taking some of Franklin pie stop the voters from voting? I thought it was where they have to travel further out to vote but yet they can still vote?

So creating districts based on fairness and balance to both parties as well as various incomes and skin color is bad? How does deciding to create one by taking groups of one skin color from various locations even if they are not close make sense? I can see if works in your favor being embraced but it is still segregation and cannot be called equal. What is someone said hey we should do that with school districts? Would you embrace that?

FUN FACT, 8 states are 100% blue with a 45% republican minority. Not one republican representative. ME, MA, NH, VT, RI, DE, NM AND HI. That's big piece of pie.

ICE took map technology to find out Latinx community. I believe if we were more intertwined where people felt safe it would make people be less of a target.
I like walking out my door and seeing people who don’t look like me.
If we lived more united instead Black people having to be heavy in certain districts & then messing with those districts would it change?
I hope I asked that correctly.
At the same time I understand why people like to stay in their own communities because it can be safer, culture keeping ect.

You can tell Snoopy is ⚫️ just by his attitude! 😂😂😂😂
- Yep, can't live without Snoopy!! Charlie Brown wouldn't be CB without Snoopy.
js

Joy dont nobody care about you or your views

Thank you for dumping it down for the most simple minded people around!

Take em’ to school!!! Great breakdown and yeah….Snoopy definitely Black!

If we could only learn to stick together

You're always on point

The Penuts are the best example in the world. 😮

Thank you for this 💐

Joy is Brilliant

RIGHT ON✊🏾✊🏾

We don't understand our power

A Harvard educated woman says strategery!! That's not a word!!

🎯🎯🎯💯

Where was Joy when Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois and several other states all cut out any Republican representation even even though 40% of the constituents there are Republicans and vote Republican. Where was the media with this when it happened, Crickets, you know why because Dems and the media are one in the same it’s only bad when Republicans do it, but it’s OK for Democrats to do it

💯 🫶🏼 Joy!

It is time for black people to unite against this continuous and constant racism.

💯💯

When they come for us we must return the favor 😊

If you were educated you would know every American citizen has equal rights and are free and can vote with id for anyone they want

It was always about black folk. ALWAYS! Where's Kanye, Ice Cube?

This is all because of the eletoral college. Everyone should have 1 vote and thats it. The electoral college is being weaponized against POC. Its that simple, thank you for this video.

Great explanation.✅

🤣🤣🤣🤣🎯😂😂😂😂‼️I 💜U‼️

America birthed in genocide and built on slavery

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Kelvin, Petitioner
v.
United States, Respondent
Hypothetical Oral Argument
(On the Constitutional Duty to Eliminate, Not Endorse, Gerrymandering’s Unconstitutionality)

OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
This case presents a question this Court has avoided for more than two centuries: Is gerrymandering constitutional at all? Not whether race may be considered. Not whether partisan advantage is permissible. Not whether maps can be drawn more fairly. The question is the one this Court has never answered: How can the deliberate manipulation of district lines for political advantage be reconciled with the Constitution?
The Constitution does not authorize a system in which elected officials design the electorate that elects them. Yet this Court has never explained why such a system is permissible. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is a constitutional failure.

I. The Court Has Never Justified Gerrymandering’s Constitutionality
This Court has never issued a ruling that explains how gerrymandering fits within the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, or the Guarantee Clause. Instead, the Court has treated gerrymandering as a political tradition — something inherited, not examined. But longevity is not legality. A practice does not become constitutional simply because it has been tolerated.
In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court declared partisan gerrymandering “non‑justiciable.” But non‑justiciability is not constitutionality. It is an abdication. And an abdication cannot serve as a constitutional defense.
If the Court cannot explain why gerrymandering is constitutional, then it cannot continue to permit it.

II. Gerrymandering Violates Equal Protection
Equal Protection requires that each citizen’s vote carry equal weight. Gerrymandering deliberately ensures that votes do not carry equal weight. It dilutes some votes, inflates others, fractures communities, and predetermines outcomes.
A system that intentionally engineers unequal political power cannot be squared with the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection is not compatible with engineered inequality.

III. Gerrymandering Violates the Guarantee Clause
The Guarantee Clause promises every state a “Republican Form of Government.” A republican government requires representatives chosen by the people through free and fair elections without manipulation of the electorate by those in power.
Gerrymandering reverses this order. It allows representatives to choose their people. It allows power to entrench itself. It allows outcomes to be predetermined.
A system in which politicians select their voters is not republican government. It is self‑preservation disguised as representation.

IV. Gerrymandering Violates the First Amendment
The First Amendment protects political association and political expression. Gerrymandering punishes voters for their political identity by diluting their votes based on predicted political behavior.
A government may not penalize citizens for their political beliefs. Yet gerrymandering does exactly that.

V. The Citizens United Multiplication Problem
This Court’s reasoning in Citizens United v. FEC rests on the premise that associations of citizens possess collective expressive rights because each individual citizen retains those rights. But even under that reasoning, the Court acknowledged that the rights of individuals are not multiplied simply because they act together. A group of citizens may express a collective view, but the aggregation of citizens does not create a superior constitutional status over any single citizen.
Yet that is precisely the asymmetry gerrymandering creates.
If a corporation — an association of citizens — cannot possess greater expressive rights than the citizens who compose it, then a political faction — also an association of citizens — cannot possess greater electoral power than the citizens outside it. The Constitution does not permit the multiplication of political power through aggregation. It does not allow one group of citizens to amplify its influence at the expense of another simply because it has organized itself more effectively.
But gerrymandering does exactly that. It multiplies the political power of one group of citizens while diminishing the political power of another. It creates an engineered asymmetry that the Court itself rejected in Citizens United.
If the Court believes that associations of citizens cannot be constitutionally favored in the realm of political expression, then it must also conclude that associations of citizens cannot be constitutionally favored in the realm of political representation.
This is not an argument to overturn Citizens United. It is an argument that the Court’s own reasoning in Citizens United makes gerrymandering indefensible.
The Court cannot defend a doctrine in which collective money is protected as political speech, but collective manipulation of district lines is permitted to distort political representation.
If Citizens United is legitimate, then gerrymandering cannot be.

VI. The Structural Conflict of Interest Makes Gerrymandering Per Se Unconstitutional
No constitutional system can survive when the regulated are allowed to regulate themselves. Gerrymandering allows politicians to draw the lines that determine the voters who determine whether those same politicians remain in power.
This is a structural conflict of interest so severe that no constitutional doctrine can justify it. The fox cannot guard the henhouse. And the Constitution does not require the people to pretend otherwise.

VII. The Historical Blind Spot
Gerrymandering has persisted not because it is constitutional, but because it has never been confronted. The Court has addressed race, population equality, and district shape — but never the core question: How can intentional manipulation of representation be constitutional?
The answer is simple: It cannot.
The Court’s failure to address this question has allowed injustice to calcify into custom. But custom is not constitutionality. And the Constitution does not permit a practice simply because it is old.

VIII. Conclusion
The Constitution requires political equality. Gerrymandering manufactures political inequality.
The Constitution requires republican government. Gerrymandering replaces it with self‑entrenchment.
The Constitution protects political expression. Gerrymandering punishes it.
The Constitution places sovereignty in the people. Gerrymandering places sovereignty in the mapmakers.
This Court must finally answer the question it has avoided: Is gerrymandering constitutional?
Under the Constitution’s text, structure, and principles, the answer is unmistakable: No. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Mr. Chief Justice, the Constitution cannot defend what it does not permit.