Ironic how all those Southern states who went all in on voter restrictions, heavily gerrymandered districts, etc,. etc., following the 2013 Shelby County v Holder SCOTUS decision voiding "pre-clearance", now find themselves on the wrong side of the 1965 VRA. No doubt Allen v Milligan was a shocking surprise to those states who believed that SCOTUS was "on their side" as they pursued flagrantly racist redistricting, and now, after getting blind-sided by Roberts et al, are going into "resistance" mode. Surely SCOTUS will hold to Milligan and allow a special master to sort out a new district in AL per its original order....won't it?
It's ironic that those calling for equality see only the color of people's skin. All black voters are not the same. The idea that forming a district based primarily on the color of one's skin is fundamentally a racist premise.
Here a quote from Dr. King's historic speech:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today."
GOD BLESSED Dr KING ! and JOHN LEWIS !, With LOVE, CHARACTER , PASSION, and TINACITY !! , To Stand ! , in UNWAVERING FAITH ! , For the GOOD !, of ALL, OF MANKIND ! ,,, ,,,,, ,,,,, WITH Our LORD/GOD ! ( in the END ! ) WE Will HAVE, * OVERCOMED ! HALLEHLUJAH !
The assumptions in these redistricting cases are blatantly reductive, racist, and problematic. The underpinning to the reasoning is that "black people want different representatives than white people" and that is blatantly racist.
Also, when one reasons that "black people have a right to have their voice heard in this district" you are simultaneously concluding that white people will not have a voice for that district, which is also racist. This is a forced conclusion from the premise that if black people do not have a majority their voice will not be heard. They conclude that is bad but somehow force the same result onto white voters. The assumption, which is wrong, in all these cases are that black voters have a different interest in elected officials than white voters. It is going to be hard to keep developing law around these principals when they are blatantly wrong.
The premise behind both of your posts is wrong and that is based on your failure to understand the Voting Rights Act and the Gingles vote dilution test for Section 2 claims. If you actually have an interest in doing more than quoting the one MLK quote conservatives know, I’d start there.
I understand the reasoning behind arguing for skin tone based districts, and I fundamentally disagree. As an immigrant and a minority living in America, a so called "person of color", I have had the same opportunities to succeed in the things I pursue, and engage with the political processes of this nation as much as any other person. I find my convictions being embraced and represented by men and women of many shades. Skin tone has never been empowering or uniting to me. Culture and convictions are.
The reason I chose that quote is because it speaks directly to what is taking place in Alabama. I believe there is an effort taking place to try and make Dr. King's dream a reality. A true effort to get away from race based identity politics and allow character to create unity. Blacks, Hispanics, people of every color can vote, and the fear that used to be associated with voting is now also gone.
The Voting Rights Act was not meant to create a permanent environment where race or skin color trump all else, and are to dictate how districts are formed and policy is crafted.
Don't get me wrong, if there is an actual law that is keeping people from voting or being represented, it should be stuck down. But I guess that is what the argument is all about regarding what is happening in Alabama.
As a personal note, it is patronizing at this point in our nation's history to say that some "races " need the strong "white man" to stand up for them.
All brown and black people do not vote the same way, because we vote based on CHARACTER not COLOR.
So, no, you do not care about the law or the facts, as what you are saying is in no way accurate in its representation of either Alabama, as the record in the case makes clear, or the Voting Rights Act, as the case makes clear.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation.
Just because I don't understand the case the same way you doesn't mean I do not care about the law or the facts. Just an observation, it seems like you find it easy to dismiss ideas/opinions that you don't approve of.
Im curious what Alabama thinks is open to dispute on its second trip to the court. In a month it will object to all of the special masters plans submitted per the district courts order and the court will impose one of them. What then--will Alabama cave throw in the towel or will federal marshals be called in to oversee the 2024 elections?
Congratulations on a momentous milestone...it's a testament to your informed and empathetic coverage.
So pleased you are here and writing. I’ve enjoyed it quite a lot. One thing I’ve always wondered - why law dork??
This is some of it, but, basically, it fit, and it stuck because it fits. 😂 https://www.lawdork.com/p/twenty-years-law-dork-chris-geidner
Keep up the great work!
Thanks!
Ironic how all those Southern states who went all in on voter restrictions, heavily gerrymandered districts, etc,. etc., following the 2013 Shelby County v Holder SCOTUS decision voiding "pre-clearance", now find themselves on the wrong side of the 1965 VRA. No doubt Allen v Milligan was a shocking surprise to those states who believed that SCOTUS was "on their side" as they pursued flagrantly racist redistricting, and now, after getting blind-sided by Roberts et al, are going into "resistance" mode. Surely SCOTUS will hold to Milligan and allow a special master to sort out a new district in AL per its original order....won't it?
I think so.
It's ironic that those calling for equality see only the color of people's skin. All black voters are not the same. The idea that forming a district based primarily on the color of one's skin is fundamentally a racist premise.
Here a quote from Dr. King's historic speech:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today."
GOD BLESSED Dr KING ! and JOHN LEWIS !, With LOVE, CHARACTER , PASSION, and TINACITY !! , To Stand ! , in UNWAVERING FAITH ! , For the GOOD !, of ALL, OF MANKIND ! ,,, ,,,,, ,,,,, WITH Our LORD/GOD ! ( in the END ! ) WE Will HAVE, * OVERCOMED ! HALLEHLUJAH !
The assumptions in these redistricting cases are blatantly reductive, racist, and problematic. The underpinning to the reasoning is that "black people want different representatives than white people" and that is blatantly racist.
Also, when one reasons that "black people have a right to have their voice heard in this district" you are simultaneously concluding that white people will not have a voice for that district, which is also racist. This is a forced conclusion from the premise that if black people do not have a majority their voice will not be heard. They conclude that is bad but somehow force the same result onto white voters. The assumption, which is wrong, in all these cases are that black voters have a different interest in elected officials than white voters. It is going to be hard to keep developing law around these principals when they are blatantly wrong.
Agreed 👍
The premise behind both of your posts is wrong and that is based on your failure to understand the Voting Rights Act and the Gingles vote dilution test for Section 2 claims. If you actually have an interest in doing more than quoting the one MLK quote conservatives know, I’d start there.
I understand the reasoning behind arguing for skin tone based districts, and I fundamentally disagree. As an immigrant and a minority living in America, a so called "person of color", I have had the same opportunities to succeed in the things I pursue, and engage with the political processes of this nation as much as any other person. I find my convictions being embraced and represented by men and women of many shades. Skin tone has never been empowering or uniting to me. Culture and convictions are.
The reason I chose that quote is because it speaks directly to what is taking place in Alabama. I believe there is an effort taking place to try and make Dr. King's dream a reality. A true effort to get away from race based identity politics and allow character to create unity. Blacks, Hispanics, people of every color can vote, and the fear that used to be associated with voting is now also gone.
The Voting Rights Act was not meant to create a permanent environment where race or skin color trump all else, and are to dictate how districts are formed and policy is crafted.
Don't get me wrong, if there is an actual law that is keeping people from voting or being represented, it should be stuck down. But I guess that is what the argument is all about regarding what is happening in Alabama.
As a personal note, it is patronizing at this point in our nation's history to say that some "races " need the strong "white man" to stand up for them.
All brown and black people do not vote the same way, because we vote based on CHARACTER not COLOR.
So, no, you do not care about the law or the facts, as what you are saying is in no way accurate in its representation of either Alabama, as the record in the case makes clear, or the Voting Rights Act, as the case makes clear.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation.
Just because I don't understand the case the same way you doesn't mean I do not care about the law or the facts. Just an observation, it seems like you find it easy to dismiss ideas/opinions that you don't approve of.
Was MLK in favor of the Voting Rights Act?
Im curious what Alabama thinks is open to dispute on its second trip to the court. In a month it will object to all of the special masters plans submitted per the district courts order and the court will impose one of them. What then--will Alabama cave throw in the towel or will federal marshals be called in to oversee the 2024 elections?
please Justices, give Thomas a chance, pretty please??
Congrats on the stats.