As he requested, here is a response to Sagaar's issues with the VRA. On the Voting Rights Act segment, Sagaar has done a woeful job of understanding law, history, and the actual policy he critiques

1) He, like many conservatives, fundamentally do not understand the voting rights act. As Krystal points out, the Voting Rights Act exists because for the first 200 years as a country, states (Northern and Southerner) explicitly prevented black people from participating in politics. So, we passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure those people could participate. We did not pass the Voting Rights Act to guarantee there would be black representatives elected. The Voting Rights Act only guarantees that a group of people who were systematically deprived the ability to choose local and House reps could choose them. Those people could choose a black rep, a white rep, a Latino rep, a dem rep, a conservative rep or literally any rep they choose. Its about the ability to choose not the outcome. Conservatives could choose to try and appeal to black voters, and then the VRA districts would vote conservative, but they choose not to appeal. Like the old demographics is destiny dems, Sagaar assumes the VRA is meant to guarantee black reps but it doesnt!

2) Sagaar brought up Gerogia alot but he referenced the Presidential and Senatorial elections to prove his point. Those arent impacted by this decision!! This is about the House and local elections. So if Georgia is really a swing district when the state can't dilute the black voteby spreading it into majority white districts in the senate or presidential races, why would the house not be closer to a 50/50 split? Thats why dilution as a standard makes sense!!

3) I wish Krystal would've asked Sagaar "If you believe we at one point in time we need the VRA to correct for Jim Crow, when did we stop needing it? When did the South Stop wanting to break up black districts?" As you can see in the two pictures below, the states that were the main focus of the VRA plan on going right back to the same maps they had in 1964 that broke up black majority districts. They are doing this in the manner that has been done to Nashville (second pic) this is called cracking. You take what would be a contiguous community of people, and divide it into various other districts to dilute the vote. If Sagaar agrees that Southern states used to use cracking to dilute the black vote (so we needed the VRA) and those same states are now gonna dilute the black vote in the same way they did in 1964, why exactly shouldn't we assume they are doing it for the same reasons they did in 1964?

4) The desperate outcomes test makes sense for the VRA context! Post Civil War the only way to stop black voters suppression was reconstruction occupation. The second it ended, the South went right back to the old way. Then, the Supreme Court adopted the "facially neutral" seperate but equal test. That is the kind of facially neutral, color blind law Sagaar seems to like. It is why Jim Crow happened!! We moved away from these facailly neutral laws in voting for a reason! Because we know, from our history, people who want to be racist can easily craft facially neutral laws that have an intended disperate impact. For a student of history, Sagaar is always terribly uninformed about this history.