Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters’ Power
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court, ina surprise decision, ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 ruling. He was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Voting rights advocates had feared the decision would undermine the Voting Rights Act, which instead appeared to emerge unscathed.
The chief justice wrote that there were legitimate concerns that the law “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the states.” He added: “Our opinion today does not diminish or disregard these concerns. It simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here.”
The case was part of a pitched battle over redistricting playing out across the country. Civil rights leaders say the redistricting process often disadvantages growing minority communities. Republican state officials say the Constitution allows only a limited role for the consideration of race in drawing voting districts.
The case started after Alabama’s Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, redrew the congressional map to take account of the 2020 census.
The state has seven congressional districts, and its voting-age population is about 27 percent Black. The new map maintained a single district in which Black voters made up a majority.
That district has long elected a Democrat, while the state’s other six districts are represented by Republicans.
After Black voters and advocacy groups challenged the map under the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights law enacted in 1965 to protect minority voters, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Birmingham ruled that the Legislature should have fashioned a second district “in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.”
The unsigned decision was joined byJudge Stanley Marcus, who ordinarily sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, and who was appointed by President Bill Clinton; and by JudgesAnna M. ManascoandTerry F. Moorer, both appointed by President Donald J. Trump.
The panel found that voting in the state is racially polarized and that it would be possible to draw “a second reasonably configured district” to allow Black voters to elect their favored candidates.
Last year, the Supreme Courttemporarily blockedthe lower court’s ruling by a 5-to-4 vote, ensuring that the 2022 election would take place using the Legislature’s map, the one with a single district in which Black voters were in the majority.
Tags
Who is online
457 visitors
Keep this up Kavanaugh and you will be called a traitor.
yeah, really squashes all the yahoos calling the SC a bunch of fascists, huh?
Why is it that so many of the Chicken Little things liberals whine about simply never come to fruition?
Yeah, the Court is legitimate today. Next week it will be an illegitimate Court issuing illegitimate rulings the President should ignore.
Hell, being called a traitor is much nicer than what liberals usually call him!
I take both of your questions as being inanely rhetorical.
I will be sure to file that important info in its proper place!
I wonder what caused reversing fields, guilt?
backfilling. he just heard the FBI doesn't do half-assed backgound checks...
He has done that a couple of times. I imagine it will happen sooner or later.
Just as soon as SCOTUS releases another ruling liberals don't like, it will return to what was being said after the Roe decision.
He already is by leftists. So what is your point?
That he will be so by both sides now? If it can happen to Liz, why not to him?
Court says white people can't properly represent blacks and blacks can't represent whites. People can only people be properly represented by reps of their own race.
I'm sure the progressives will support the racial gerrymandering of Jackson, Missiippi to ensure minority whites have white representatives.
Jackson is a majority Black. Downtown anyway.
yes, exactly my point.
Without gerrymandering to ensure whites in Jackson have white majority districts in proportion to their population numbers, they are being disenfranchised.
We all know gerrymandering goes on. It is a practice that should be done away with.
They should do like a grid pattern.
Interesting that the state government and governor seems to think that Jackson needs to have the state police there.
They 'should' prevail in court but you never know.
This is also after they couldn't fix the drinking water problem. And they wonder why there may be civil unrest....
Went months without water.
yeah, what liberal could ever believe that a white-majority government could be concerned about high crime rates in a majority-black city?
Maybe THIS is why:
Crime in Jackson, Mississippi (MS): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers, crime map (city-data.com)
Well, then the white majority government should get to work bringing Mississippi off the bottom of every metrix. One again it ranks as the worst state to live in.
Study finds Mississippi is nation’s worst state in which to live, again
This will be a good start.
It's especially heinous when it's the government mandating it be done for racist reasons.
They should do like a grid pattern.
i agree. Compact districts.
Another thing they do I noticed, they spend millions around Jackson. Driving through downtown the roads are terrible and it looks like crap. Yet go to the outskirts of the city and millions being spent on roads, new utilities...
It is like the interior is neglected.
I've been thru Jackson a few times to get to Biloxi. They have a nice bypass around the city.
The place to live up there now is Flowood. Don't even have to go to Jackson, they have every kind of store you could imagine.
I always said that about New Orleans. Haha
Supreme Court got one right
Hmmm, this seed appears to have brought out a lot of anger from the usual suspects.
And the racialists who believe race is the defining characteristic of one's existence are happy. Good day for the George Wallaces of the world.
George [deleted] recanted.
Who are these "racialists" ?
Imaginary creatures that live in the empty areas of some folks heads.
Here in Cali, redistricting is done by a commission consisting of 5 Dems, 5 Repubs, and 4 independents. It's been done that way twice now and the result is more compact and uniform districts with less division of cities and communities. Dems hold all the statewide offices now too because in a fair election, the majority wins.
Maybe let your Democratic brethren know about that because every time they lose in Texas, they always have some excuse.
Actually, in Texas, Dems have a slight majority over the Repubs according to the Pew Research Center. The reason the Repubs do so well there is because of the same crap that was happening in Alabama. Like I said, in a fair election the majority will win.
Statewide races go to majority winner here in Texas.
Are you saying Texas elections for state offices were rigged or tampered with?
prior to the 2020 election. Dems don't seem to turn out in big numbers unless of course some rules get changed as they did back then so the voters didn't have to get off their asses and vote and could do so from their couch.
I'm not alleging any voter fraud if that's what you mean. I'm sure that a lot of independents in Texas are pretty conservative. My point is that the concept that a "party in power" of any party should be entrusted with drawing district maps is absurd.
So we can see that some "conservative" justices sometimes votes with the "liberal" justices. I wonder how often the "liberal" justices have voted with the "conservative" justices. Maybe that will give an idea as to who is unbiased and who is biased.
They all voted unanimous on something a while back. I forget what it was.
Might have been when Schumer called them a MAGA supreme court.
Ha. I wouldn't doubt it.