Order signals that delay won't work this time—and that Black Alabamians will have a chance to elect a representative of their choosing in two districts in 2024.
Less an unqualified endorsement of the original district court decision, but more an institutional defense of the federal court system, including SCOTUS itself, IMHO. Whatever, Sect. 2 of the VRA remains a formidable weapon against race-based gerrymandering, and is encouragingly supportive of other lawsuits pending in Southern states under seemingly identical grounds, i.e., Sect. 2 violation.
That’s an interesting question, Ira. I don’t have an answer. And I’m probably one of the worst people to ask because I think gerrymandering should be illegal.
Just wondering: can gerrymandering be used to minimize white representation in AL? What would be the maximum number of “opportunity” districts for black voters in Alabama if the 65% white vote were “cracked” and “packed”. Is 3 even possible?
While I would put nothing past our state representatives, many of whom gleefully choose the stupidest path, and then double down on it, I would think the SCOTUS decision to reject puts them in a an extremely precarious position. I know nothing about laws regarding suing state representatives, but I would be shocked if continuing in the manner they have would not open them up to a variety of lawsuits as well as federal intervention.
The reasonable and rational person can be excused for thinking, "Well, this is it, it's done, they lost."
The thing is: there's all sorts of discussion about how liberals don't trust or respect SCOTUS now because of its decisions, but little discussion about how conservatives and the Republicans also don't respect SCOTUS solely because they think they own the court now.
I hope Georgia and Louisiana (and I guess Florida too) are paying attention.
Hot Damn. Fun to see the Extremes say "ignore me at your peril" in nice brief legalese.
Less an unqualified endorsement of the original district court decision, but more an institutional defense of the federal court system, including SCOTUS itself, IMHO. Whatever, Sect. 2 of the VRA remains a formidable weapon against race-based gerrymandering, and is encouragingly supportive of other lawsuits pending in Southern states under seemingly identical grounds, i.e., Sect. 2 violation.
I don't disagree with that halfway, as I think the headline and lede make clear. I do think it's both, though, given June's ruling.
Huge win!
Boom!
That’s an interesting question, Ira. I don’t have an answer. And I’m probably one of the worst people to ask because I think gerrymandering should be illegal.
Just wondering: can gerrymandering be used to minimize white representation in AL? What would be the maximum number of “opportunity” districts for black voters in Alabama if the 65% white vote were “cracked” and “packed”. Is 3 even possible?
And yet, I just won't be surprised if the Alabama Republicans continue with their own map.
While I would put nothing past our state representatives, many of whom gleefully choose the stupidest path, and then double down on it, I would think the SCOTUS decision to reject puts them in a an extremely precarious position. I know nothing about laws regarding suing state representatives, but I would be shocked if continuing in the manner they have would not open them up to a variety of lawsuits as well as federal intervention.
The reasonable and rational person can be excused for thinking, "Well, this is it, it's done, they lost."
The thing is: there's all sorts of discussion about how liberals don't trust or respect SCOTUS now because of its decisions, but little discussion about how conservatives and the Republicans also don't respect SCOTUS solely because they think they own the court now.
How this will play out, beats heck out of me.