Supreme Court backs landmark voting rights law

[ll74]

5-4 decision, strikes down Alabama's bullshit Congressional maps.

Roberts and Kavanaugh join the majority.

Notable in their decision, both Roberts and Kavanaugh mention that this does not completely dismiss future challenges against section 2.

 

[butters]

A three-judge court, with two appointees of former President Donald Trump, had little trouble concluding that the plan likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of Black Alabamians. The panel ordered a new map drawn.

But the state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, where five conservative justices prevented the lower-court ruling from going forward. They allowed last year’s congressional elections to proceed under the map that the lower court had said is probably illegal.

At the same time, the court decided to hear the Alabama case, and arguments were held in early October.

The judges found that Alabama concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it impossible for them to elect a candidate of their choice.

Alabama’s Black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district, the judges found.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=9945c7a8756348558b7f0ef2f13d1fae&ei=68

 

[jaF0]

Districts should be geographical ONLY. Whole counties based on population counts to equally apportion districts. In denser areas, demarcate based on geographical landmarks like rivers, railroads or major highways, or by established city/town lines.

Demographics should play no part at all.

 

[Dribble]

Districts should be geographical ONLY. Whole counties based on population counts to equally apportion districts. In denser areas, demarcate based on geographical landmarks like rivers, railroads or major highways, or by established city/town lines.

Demographics should play no part at all.

Any district should be drawn within 1 % of the smallest possible perimeter. This accounts for rivers, highways...whatever.

 

[ll74]

I prefer that districts are drawn according to the population makeup. Not necessarily geographically. Urban or rural population should not be over or under represented. Gerrymandering to get any.advantage should be against the law.

 

[jaF0]

I'm saying each district should have roughly the same number of people regardless of race, party, religion, personal wealth, etc. In rural areas, that may mean 1, 2, 5 or more counties since some are sparsely populated. In urban areas that are more densely populated, the divisions would be along recognized boundaries, not squiggly lines.

 

[Dribble]

I'm saying each district should have roughly the same number of people regardless of race, party, religion, personal wealth, etc. In rural areas, that may mean 1, 2, 5 or more counties since some are sparsely populated. In urban areas that are more densely populated, the divisions would be along recognized boundaries, not squiggly lines.

Exactly. This is what our Founding Fathers had envisioned

 

[jaF0]

Founding Fathers were kind of assholish about it though. No women, Native Americans didn't count as people ... wasn't there something about only those that owned property mattered?

 

[Dribble]

Founding Fathers were kind of assholish about it though. No women, Native Americans didn't count as people ... wasn't there something about only those that owned property mattered?

Yes. You must have been male and owned property to originally been granted the right to vote. But there was not the gerrymandering we see today.