Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if they want these districts more even now, then I expect the legislature will be fine with that, especially to the extent that they can switch other Democratic voters in and the black voters out.
The Republicans are going to be focused like a laser beam on winning the maximum number of districts in that state with the smallest effort that they can get by with. I don't believe that anyone's skin color is going to alter those priorities at all.
Outside of perhaps downtown pocekts of Huntsville and Birmingham where exactly would they find other Democratic voters to switch in when they switch the black voters out for it not to impact the partisan balanace??
I think the overall reasoning behind the districts were likely more partisan than racial. However, due to how huge the racial voting disparity is in Alabama, the max partisan gerrymander is going to result in minority packing of a select few districts.
Outside of perhaps downtown pocekts of Huntsville and Birmingham where exactly would they find other Democratic voters to switch in when they switch the black voters out for it not to impact the partisan balanace??
I think the overall reasoning behind the districts were likely more partisan than racial. However, due to how huge the racial voting disparity is in Alabama, the max partisan gerrymander is going to result in minority packing of a select few districts.
Yep.
First thing is that the lower court would need find there is a problem, which means a racial problem, as opposed to a partisanship problem. If that happens, then the black districts would still be maintained as overwhelmingly black, just perhaps a bit less so. That is why I suspect that the Alabama legislature will likely take the initiative and make some changes that they think will satisfy this new requirement, if they can even figure out what those desired changes are.
The covered jurisdictions elements of the Civil Rights Act were overturned in 2013:
But that does not mean the sections banning discrimination in voting have been banned, and I do not believe there is anyone who will suggest they should be. Now that the outdated preclearance standards have been overturned, and Voter ID has been allowed, I think you will find that everyone is supportive of the rest of the act.
I do NOT think any district should be drawn by population of of any race.
My point is that it WAS done in the past by the dems and are now being hypocrites.
NOW the repubs are eliminating "guaranteed black districts"
The dems NEVER complained when it was in their favor.
I do NOT think any district should be drawn by population of of any race.
My point is that it WAS done in the past by the dems and are now being hypocrites.
NOW the repubs are eliminating "guaranteed black districts"
The dems NEVER complained when it was in their favor.
NOW they ARE.
The complaint here is not that Republicans are eliminating "guaranteed black districts," it is that they are packing these districts so full of black people as to dilute their "influence" in other districts. According to the thinking popular for many years, this was regarded as a good thing. Apparently not anymore.
I am not sure what the (black) plantiffs are thinking here, but what this would do if the lower court determines this to be an actual problem here, is to move us a tiny bit more towards a more colorblind society. Maybe that is what the plantiffs want. Which is fine with me, as I expect it will be with most people.
The complaint here is not that Republicans are eliminating "guaranteed black districts," it is that they are packing these districts so full of black people as to dilute their "influence" in other districts. According to the thinking popular for many years, this was regarded as a good thing. Apparently not anymore.
I am not sure what the (black) plantiffs are thinking here, but what this would do if the lower court determines this to be an actual problem here, is to move us a tiny bit more towards a more colorblind society. Maybe that is what the plantiffs want. Which is fine with me, as I expect it will be with most people.
From my understanding of the argument being made is that under the VRA laws, a certain amount of districts should be majority of plurality black that in itself isn't the issue here. It is that a bunch of those districts are drawn with a much higher black % than required by the VRA laws. It would be one thing to draw it at a higher % than required by VRA if the districts were somewhat compact, but adding in the extra blacks are done in a way to make the districts even less compact as a way to get blacks out of nearby marginal districts to dilute them there.
From my understanding of the argument being made is that under the VRA laws, a certain amount of districts should be majority of plurality black that in itself isn't the issue here. It is that a bunch of those districts are drawn with a much higher black % than required by the VRA laws. It would be one thing to draw it at a higher % than required by VRA if the districts were somewhat compact, but adding in the extra blacks are done in a way to make the districts even less compact as a way to get blacks out of nearby marginal districts to dilute them there.
There is not anything in the VRA about specific percentages, or quotas, which is what a specific percentage would be.
So, what is the acceptable range of percentages of black voters that is desired for a VRA compliant district to be an acceptable "black" district? That is really where this is going, and right now, nobody really knows.
There is not anything in the VRA about specific percentages, or quotas, which is what a specific percentage would be.
So, what is the acceptable range of percentages of black voters that is desired for a VRA compliant district to be an acceptable "black" district? That is really where this is going, and right now, nobody really knows.
There really isn't anything on a specific %, but the general rule of thumb in the past has either been majority or plurality depending on the area. No real specific amounts. The issue here seems to be could the districts remain VRA compliant without adding blacks from further away areas, therefore reducing the influence blacks have in neighboring districts. The Plaintiff's are arguing that the districts would still be VRA compliant by adding in areas from closer to the core of the district rather than pulling from further away areas just to increase the black total, and by using the further away areas that they reduce the influence blacks could have in those neighboring districts.
They named some specific districts in which blacks were basically taking out of or were cut out of the core of the district and shoved into districts that would already be VRA compliant without them in which the cores were further in order to diminish the influence of those districts.
There really isn't anything on a specific %, but the general rule of thumb in the past has either been majority or plurality depending on the area. No real specific amounts. The issue here seems to be could the districts remain VRA compliant without adding blacks from further away areas, therefore reducing the influence blacks have in neighboring districts. The Plaintiff's are arguing that the districts would still be VRA compliant by adding in areas from closer to the core of the district rather than pulling from further away areas just to increase the black total, and by using the further away areas that they reduce the influence blacks could have in those neighboring districts.
They named some specific districts in which blacks were basically taking out of or were cut out of the core of the district and shoved into districts that would already be VRA compliant without them in which the cores were further in order to diminish the influence of those districts.
Well, to be honest, if it is a contiguous district, it is hard for me to understand what the objection is here, as what we are really talking about is just the typical gerrymandering process. But if these are populations from far away, then I am not sure why the Republicans would want to do that.
In any case, I suspect the Alabama legislature will likely make some of the sorts of changes you seem to be suggesting, before the court has time to deal with it, in order to nip this whole thing in the bud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
