this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
416 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2052 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an emergency bid from Alabama, setting the stage for a new congressional map likely to include a second Black majority district to account for the state’s 27% Black population.

The one-line order reflects that the feelings on the court haven’t changed since June when a 5-4 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court that had ordered the state to redraw its seven-seat congressional map to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

There were no noted dissents.

The case has been closely watched because after the court’s June ruling, Alabama GOP lawmakers again approved a congressional map with only one majority-Black district, seemingly flouting the Supreme Court’s decision that they provide more political representation for the state’s Black residents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Now all they have to do is ignore the court! It's working in Ohio!

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s wild, but they basically already did. That’s what this decision was about. SCOTUS ordered Alabama to fix their map back in June, and Alabama just straight up ignored them.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Alabama just straight up ignored them.

I dunno, I kinda see it as a toddler trying to haggle about their bedtime or getting a cookie.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohio could do it because the "independent" redistricting commission is run by the governor's son and is only bipartisan in that they were forced to allow democrats on by border initiative that changed the state constitution. Ohios maps didn't have a SCOTUS ruling, just a state Supreme Court ruling and the GOP just had to wait out a year so they could shove a more conservative justice on than the one that was retiring and had sided with the liberal justices.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if this would still hold in light of Alabama. If you can make the same case that this is diluting an ethnicity's voting power, I think a court would have to overturn it. Especially since Alabama just got bitch slapped here by the court again.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohio doesn't have the racial demographic bunching that Alabama does, which from my understanding is who they were able to show easily that the appropriate maps could be drawn and even presented multiple appropriate maps in the Alabama lawsuit. Also Ohio did not sue because of racial gerrymandering, they sued because the maps violated the state constitution. Now that there is a new state SC and Dems did better in 2022 than expected Ohio dropped the suit because they won't win.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

The court ordered that a special master draw the lines for the next election, so it sounds like they've pre-empted the Ohio strategy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This is painful but we do have a constitutional mechanism for states that can't figure their electoral shit out legally. Their representatives don't get seated. And they don't get electoral college ballots for president.

It's a 200 year old can of political fuckery that we may just have to open.