Have you considered that the 'white demographic' has filled the libraries for a long time at the expense of everyone else.
a) Classic literature being in libraries is not at the expense of non-whites.
b) That's not relevant. Nobody is saying there should be fewer non-white authors.
Lets put it this way. If a group makes an electoral map that a certified judge describes as targeting minority voting with surgical precision should we consider this an accident? Should we assume this map had been made with the best of intentions?
a) It might not be deliberate. If people live in segregated geographies, it very likely takes a deliberate effort to not "gerrymander" them. Democratic voters packing into congested urban areas does more to crack and pack than anyone could possibly do by just drawing the lines. A certified judge is not guaranteed to recognize this.
b) You shouldn't assume anything was done with the best intentions, but you should not just assume anything is done with the worst intentions. "You shouldn't resent people doing what they genuinely think if right" ... "but what if I'm assuming that they're a douchebag?"
To make an actual statement, I highly doubt anyone is targeting racial demographics with surgical precision. There are tons of correlating variables here (you know, the "people live in cities" joke), and gerrymandering is rarely done for broader purposes than protecting specific, individual candidates.
Should we assume that Republican Senators genuinely believe Trump's claims about a stolen election even if they say stuff behind closed doors like ''What's the worst thing that can happen if we indulge the president for a bit?''. Should we assume they have perfectly good reasons for promoting extremely damaging lies that they know not to be true?
It's painfully ironic that your first example is claiming Republicans use underhanded means to influence elections, and your second example is that claiming the Democrats used underhanded means is "promoting extremely damaging lies".
And if Republican push to deprive workers of protection bills that allow them to drink water should we then blindly assume that they have no plans on forbidden them from drinking water, even if they push to grant themselves the power to do it?
Republicans are not pushing to deprive workers of protection bills that allow them to drink water. Republicans in Texas have a bill that would prevent localities from implementing employment policies that contradict State or Federal policies. I personally disagree with that suggestion, but the people who have characterized this as denying people water have seemed to forgotten that State and Federal policies also require people to have access to water on demand. Like, why do you buy this crap so easily? It's such a disingenuous take.