SCOTUS' conservative majority makes a surprise decision

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/supreme-court-alabama-voting-rights-milligan/index.html

CNN —
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Alabama officials to redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district to account for the fact that the state is 27% Black.

The decision – that affords additional opportunities for minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice – comes as a surprise given the conservative majority on the court. Alabama currently has seven congressional districts, with six represented by Republicans.

Supporters of voting rights had feared that the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court’s three liberals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the key parts of the holding, providing the fifth vote.


To put it in perspective, a few decades back, this is what their electoral map looked like:

After 20 years of gerrymandering efforts, it had turned into this jigsaw puzzle

There are typically two forms of gerrymandering "Packing" and "Cracking"...the past few decades have seen both implemented in Alabama. They've both drawn wild lines in order to keep the narrow majority of Black people "packed" in the 7th district, while simultaneously creating the borders of the 7th district in a way that "cracks" up the Black voters in Birmingham and Montgomery so that 40% of them end up being stuck in Districts 2 & 6 (where their votes are rendered pointless)

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

An eagle needs both wings in order to fly.

 

[WolfGate]

Interesting. I wonder if there are any tea leaves in here for the North Carolina Supreme Court case. That one centers around the constitutionality of state courts having judicial oversight on elections, with the specific issue being the drawing of congressional boundaries by the state legislature.

 

[USincognito]

Kavanaugh was brought in to kill Roe. He did that. Nuw he feels free to vote his conscience.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's "surprising" only if you think conservative justices are utterly incapable of deciding any legal issue on the basis of the merits and occupy their positions on the court solely to promote a far-right agenda.

While the judicial branch has a better track than the legislative (in terms of the lack of hyper polarization)...Presidents appoint certain justices for a specific reasons.

Trump explicitly said he had intentions of appointing certain justices that would "see things the conservative way" on some select issues.

This just doesn't happen to be one of those issues in particular.

I think the reason why some see it as "surprising" is because certain sets of views (even if not related to each other) tend to be compartmentalized.


For instance, if liberal justice was appointed, specifically because how liberal they were on LGBT issues and economic issues, many on the conservative side would be "pleasantly surprised" if that justice made a pro-gun ruling (because, while those issues aren't directly related, those stances on them tend not to go together)

​

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I disagree with the court's remedy. The districts shouldn't be redrawn to create a specifically black majority district. That's technically still racial gerrymandering. This would be their opportunity to order the use of AI algorithms to draw truly representational districts based only on population without regard for race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., which is how they should be drawn. The tech to do this already exists. The only way we could get a state to use it to draw districts would likely be a court order, because no one wants to cede power.

 

[SimplyMe]

I disagree with the court's remedy. The districts shouldn't be redrawn to create a specifically black majority district. That's technically still racial gerrymandering. This would be their opportunity to order the use of AI algorithms to draw truly representational districts based only on population without regard for race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., which is how they should be drawn. The tech to do this already exists. The only way we could get a state to use it to draw districts would likely be a court order, because no one wants to cede power.

From what I'm reading, the Court doesn't explicitly say that. Instead, I believe the contention is that a "straight" redistricting -- not creating the weird lines between districts and just making them simple geometric shapes (such as a rectangle) results in at least one Black majority district. What the court found was that the way they redistricted, which appeared to be done to prevent any Black-majority districts, was not legal.

It is more an implication that any "normal" redistricting -- one not done to specifically "dilute" the power of minority voters -- will result in at least one district that has a Black majority.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Alabama Republicans reject call for 2nd majority Black district, despite Supreme Court ruling

Alabama Republicans have rejected proposals to create a second majority Black voting district, despite an order from the U.S. Supreme Court to redraw congressional district boundaries. Lawmakers must adopt a

www.wtva.com

Republicans, who have been resistant to creating a certain Democratic district, proposed a map that would increase the percentage of Black voters in the 2nd congressional district from about 30% to nearly 42.5%, wagering that will satisfy the court's directive.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Republicans, who have been resistant to creating a certain Democratic district, proposed a map that would increase the percentage of Black voters in the 2nd congressional district from about 30% to nearly 42.5%, wagering that will satisfy the court's directive.

It didn't.

Federal court strikes down Alabama’s second attempt to avoid adding another majority-Black congressional district​

In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel, which had overseen the case before it reached the Supreme Court, the judges wrote that they were “disturbed” by Alabama’s actions in the case.

“We are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” the judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote.

 

[durangodawood]

Hmm. Maybe its ok for a state to simply ignore the supreme court? It like the "quiet quitting" version of secession.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Hmm. Maybe its ok for a state to simply ignore the supreme court? It like the "quiet quitting" version of secession.

It is amazing how that twisted mentality persists.

 

[Pommer]

“Rule of Law”…until we don’t wanna.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It didn't.

Federal court strikes down Alabama’s second attempt to avoid adding another majority-Black congressional district​

Florida too.

Florida judge rules DeSantis’ redistricting map unconstitutional over impact on Black voters​

Central to the case is former U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, D-Fla., whose district splintered under the new map. The lawmaker, who is black, had previously enjoyed support from a wide base of Black voters in the district, but he lost his race by 20 points under the new map.

Republicans in the Florida legislature had previously introduced a redistricting map that likely would have allowed Lawson to win re-election, but the DeSantis administration put forward its own version of the map and vowed to veto any other.

 

[Whyayeman]

It seems that there are Republican Party supporters who have revolted against the overt racism of some of their fellows. For some time now decent Republicans have been less visible and less vocal.

All this would fall away if a system of proportional representation was used. Alabama sends seven representatives to Congress: everybody votes and the seated are allotted in proportion. Sorted!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Federal court strikes down Alabama’s second attempt to avoid adding another majority-Black congressional district​

So Alabama has asked the Supremes to intervene again.

Alabama asks Supreme Court to revisit congressional districting map case​

I wonder if SCOTUS regrets striking down the preclearance rules in the Voting Rights Act that covered states like Alabama and others with a history of racial discrimination in voting. Who could have foreseen that those same states with a history of racial discrimination would immediately start drawing unconstitutional maps on racial lines and purging voter rolls? Anyway, all these lawsuits must be causing them extra paperwork, and who needs that?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So Alabama has asked the Supremes to intervene again.

Alabama asks Supreme Court to revisit congressional districting map case​

Supreme Court refuses to allow Alabama to use disputed map for 2024​

Alabama essentially had asked the Supreme Court to revisit the issue of voting rights in the state only months after the justices unexpectedly rejected the earlier version of Alabama’s congressional districting map, citing the landmark civil rights law.

There were no noted dissents in the order.

 

[Say it aint so]

Here's the thing though. Just like in Ohio, the GOP have just been ignoring court decisions that have gone against them as if the laws and rulings don't apply to them. We see in Wisconsin where they are threatening to impeach a Judge simply because of the way she might rule, which again is against their gerrymandering.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree with the court's remedy. The districts shouldn't be redrawn to create a specifically black majority district. That's technically still racial gerrymandering. This would be their opportunity to order the use of AI algorithms to draw truly representational districts based only on population without regard for race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., which is how they should be drawn. The tech to do this already exists. The only way we could get a state to use it to draw districts would likely be a court order, because no one wants to cede power.

Can you explain what "truly representational districts based on population" means?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting. I wonder if there are any tea leaves in here for the North Carolina Supreme Court case. That one centers around the constitutionality of state courts having judicial oversight on elections, with the specific issue being the drawing of congressional boundaries by the state legislature.

Tea leaves?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Can you explain what "truly representational districts based on population" means?

No.