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.
So the Supreme Court has directed a lower court in Alabama to take into account whether Republican lawmakers may have packed black voters into districts in order to reduce their influence elsewhere as part of the state's redistricting plan.
The Supreme Court sided with black challengers Wednesday and told a lower court to reconsider whether a redistricting plan drawn by Alabama’s Republican legislature packed minority voters into districts to dilute their influence.
The court voted 5 to 4 to send the plan back for further judicial review. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sided with the court’s liberals to make up the majority.
The challenge was brought by black officeholders and Democrats who argued that the state’s Republican leadership packed minority voters into districts that allowed the election of African American officials but reduced their influence elsewhere.
If you don't like gerrymandering, we got that. Consider that said and re-said. However, that is not the topic at issue here.
I would encourage everyone on all sides to think a bit about this before firing off with the typical knee-jerk partisan extremism on this ruling, as this is a little nuanced and tricky. First of all, the Supreme Court did not rule that the Republicans HAD packed this district in order to dilute "black" representation elsewhere. It just directed the lower court to consider IF they had.
In fact, I suspect that the Republicans true aim was to reduce "Democratic" representation elsewhere, which is what a typical gerrymandered redistricting plan typically seeks to accomplish. And that applies to Democratic and Republican controlled state legislatures alike, both of which have been actively and enthusiastically engaging in gerrymandering for well over a hundred years now.
Let's remember at the outset that the usual issue that people are concerned with here is legislatures not doing enough to facilitate the election of black representatives. So, the focus is usually on making sure that the influence of blacks is sufficiently concentrated to allow them to be represented, not that it is possibly too concentrated, which is a practice that seems to nearly guarantee representation of these highly concentrated black districts by a person with their same skin color, which certainly appears to be a high priority for this group, and which has ensured the achievement of resolution of the initial complaint that this group was not being put into districts that were concentrated enough.
I am not sure why the Alabama Republicans should be more concerned about diluting black influence in other districts than diluting Democratic influence (and representation) in other districts. Of course the reason for the latter is obvious - it positions the Republicans to potentially win in more districts. But what would be the motive for specifically wanting to dilute black influence in other districts, separate and apart from the fact that they tend to reliably be the most consistent Democratic voters alive?
This is the question that the lower court case will turn on, I suspect, as if the Alabama legislature is just trying to dilute the influence of Democrats, as part of a typical gerrymandering strategy, then the "reconsideration" of this issue will be dismissed as irrelevant and come to naught.
Let me say again that if someone can give me a thoughtful reason as to what the Alabama legislature would have to gain by diluting black influence in districts other than the ones that black votes are being concentrated in, I sure would appreciate your insight into that.
However, if there is a legitimate reason, and this legislature were to be found to be discriminating against black people in the sort of intentionally harmful way that the original lawsuit insisted, then this matter should certainly be corrected and the Alabama legislature should certainly be held accountable.
Let's keep in mind though, that as far as I am aware, this is the first time this sort of complaint has ever been heard by the high court, as this traditionally has not been the problem that people have been concerned about on this subject.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 03-25-2015 at 01:28 PM..
What is the significance of today’s Alabama ruling? It seems likely on remand that at least some of Alabama’s districts will be found to be racial gerrymanders. This means that some of these districts will have to be redrawn to “unpack” some minority voters from these districts. But do not be surprised if Alabama preempts the lawsuit by drawing new districts which are less racially conscious but still constitute a partisan gerrymander which helps the Republicans have greater control over the Alabama legislative districts. As I have noted, lurking in the background of this case is the “race or party” problem: with most Democrats in Alabama being African Americans and most Republicans being white, how does one determine whether a predominant factor in gerrymandering is race or party?
So, it sounds to me as if the Alabama legislature is likely to read this and say fine, we will redo the redistricting plan. At that point, they will diminish the percentages of black voters in some districts and shift the remainder to others.
This should be interesting in the future for concentrated black districts in other states, such as that of Sheila Jackson Leigh in Houston Texas. She has become accustomed to an easy slam dunk race in her district because of the dominant black makeup of the district. How will she fair if it is not so dominant any more? Her and others?
This is really kind of complicated and tricky. What is the right percentage of black voters to allocate to black gerrymandered districts, as are virtually required by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? Too few, and you are discriminating for depriving the black community of representation in Congress. Too many, as we see here, and you are depriving the black community of influence in other districts. Hmmmm.
The issue of race vs. party gerrymandering is tricky in a place such as AL because race and party affiliation are more closely related. In 2008 Senate races for example, the race split was 90-10 and 10-90 for the two candidates. On that basis, a gerrymandered district is substantively a racially gerrymandered district. That's where the problem is. The question is at what point does it hit that threshold 80-20 and 20-80 splits, 95-5 and 5-95 splits? Surely somewhere between those two figures. Looking at the Senate, the 29 white Senators are split 26 Rep, 2 Dem, and 1 Independent. The 6 AA Senators are all Dems.
I'm not buying that districting in this manner is somehow doing African American voters a favor with respect to representation. No matter how the state is districted, there is likely to be no less than the current AA representation in the Senate or House. Statistically, it is very improbable. The fact is that in 7 of the 8 D controlled Senate seats, the winner ran unopposed. That would be indicative of a closer look. In some cases, given the nature of physical segregation among both white and black residents, this type of pattern will be difficult to completely eliminate.
7 of 8 unopposed on one side with the other winning by 48 pts vs 13 races won on the other side by a MOV smaller than the only 2-person race won by the Dems...
So the Supreme Court has directed a lower court in Alabama to take into account whether Republican lawmakers may have packed black voters into districts in order to reduce their influence elsewhere as part of the state's redistricting plan.
If you don't like gerrymandering, we got that. Consider that said and re-said. However, that is not the topic at issue here.
I would encourage everyone on all sides to think a bit about this before firing off with the typical knee-jerk partisan extremism on this ruling, as this is a little nuanced and tricky. First of all, the Supreme Court did not rule that the Republicans HAD packed this district in order to dilute "black" representation elsewhere. It just directed the lower court to consider IF they had.
In fact, I suspect that the Republicans true aim was to reduce "Democratic" representation elsewhere, which is what a typical gerrymandered redistricting plan typically seeks to accomplish. And that applies to Democratic and Republican controlled state legislatures alike, both of which have been actively and enthusiastically engaging in gerrymandering for well over a hundred years now.
Let's remember at the outset that the usual issue that people are concerned with here is legislatures not doing enough to facilitate the election of black representatives. So, the focus is usually on making sure that the influence of blacks is sufficiently concentrated to allow them to be represented, not that it is possibly too concentrated, which is a practice that seems to nearly guarantee representation of these highly concentrated black districts by a person with their same skin color, which certainly appears to be a high priority for this group, and which has ensured the achievement of resolution of the initial complaint that this group was not being put into districts that were concentrated enough.
I am not sure why the Alabama Republicans should be more concerned about diluting black influence in other districts than diluting Democratic influence (and representation) in other districts. Of course the reason for the latter is obvious - it positions the Republicans to potentially win in more districts. But what would be the motive for specifically wanting to dilute black influence in other districts, separate and apart from the fact that they tend to reliably be the most consistent Democratic voters alive?
This is the question that the lower court case will turn on, I suspect, as if the Alabama legislature is just trying to dilute the influence of Democrats, as part of a typical gerrymandering strategy, then the "reconsideration" of this issue will be dismissed as irrelevant and come to naught.
Let me say again that if someone can give me a thoughtful reason as to what the Alabama legislature would have to gain by diluting black influence in districts other than the ones that black votes are being concentrated in, I sure would appreciate your insight into that.
However, if there is a legitimate reason, and this legislature were to be found to be discriminating against black people in the sort of intentionally harmful way that the original lawsuit insisted, then this matter should certainly be corrected and the Alabama legislature should certainly be held accountable.
Let's keep in mind though, that as far as I am aware, this is the first time this sort of complaint has ever been heard by the high court, as this traditionally has not been the problem that people have been concerned about on this subject.
All About Redistricting
Section 5
"In the 2010 cycle, nine states, and parts of seven others, were "covered jurisdictions" under section 5. Coverage is not eternal: in a procedure known as "bailout," after ten years of steps to improve opportunities for minority voting, a covered jurisdiction can ask a federal trial court in Washington, D.C. to be released from Section 5.
In the past MAKING sure that blacks had black representation was PART of the LAW so districts were DRAW up on purpose to make sure a black was "elect".
The issue of race vs. party gerrymandering is tricky in a place such as AL because race and party affiliation are more closely related. In 2008 Senate races for example, the race split was 90-10 and 10-90 for the two candidates. On that basis, a gerrymandered district is substantively a racially gerrymandered district. That's where the problem is. The question is at what point does it hit that threshold 80-20 and 20-80 splits, 95-5 and 5-95 splits? Surely somewhere between those two figures. Looking at the Senate, the 29 white Senators are split 26 Rep, 2 Dem, and 1 Independent. The 6 AA Senators are all Dems.
I'm not buying that districting in this manner is somehow doing African American voters a favor with respect to representation. No matter how the state is districted, there is likely to be no less than the current AA representation in the Senate or House. Statistically, it is very improbable. The fact is that in 7 of the 8 D controlled Senate seats, the winner ran unopposed. That would be indicative of a closer look. In some cases, given the nature of physical segregation among both white and black residents, this type of pattern will be difficult to completely eliminate.
7 of 8 unopposed on one side with the other winning by 48 pts vs 13 races won on the other side by a MOV smaller than the only 2-person race won by the Dems...
I think one key is the shape of the districts and how the population is dispersed within those districts. Two districts next to each other, one with a heavily white population, another with a mostly black population likely doesn't raise many issues if the districts were drawn in a fairly compact manner. There really is no way to show packing in that case. IF however, you had a few districts next to each other with huge disparities of white and black populations and the shapes of those districts were basically a hodgepodge of squiggly lines
"In the 2010 cycle, nine states, and parts of seven others, were "covered jurisdictions" under section 5. Coverage is not eternal: in a procedure known as "bailout," after ten years of steps to improve opportunities for minority voting, a covered jurisdiction can ask a federal trial court in Washington, D.C. to be released from Section 5.
In the past MAKING sure that blacks had black representation was PART of the LAW so districts were DRAW up on purpose to make sure a black was "elect".
The ruling decision overturned critical aspects of the law. Specifically, Section 4 -- the formula the federal government uses to determine which states and counties are subject to continued oversight -- was struck down. Roberts said that formula, which was devised in 1972 and later reauthorized by Congress, is outdated and unworkable.
That means Section 5 effectively cannot be enforced. It relies heavily on the coverage formula to determine which governments must still run any changes by the U.S. Justice Department.
In his ruling opinion, Roberts faulted Congress for not updating "the coverage formula" last decade to reflect changing times.
"Its failure leaves us today with no choice but to declare Section 4 unconstitutional," he wrote. "The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance."
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 think one key is the shape of the districts and how the population is dispersed within those districts. Two districts next to each other, one with a heavily white population, another with a mostly black population likely doesn't raise many issues if the districts were drawn in a fairly compact manner. There really is no way to show packing in that case. IF however, you had a few districts next to each other with huge disparities of white and black populations and the shapes of those districts were basically a hodgepodge of squiggly lines
That's what you would naturally think. But for 50 years now, the courts have required the creation of exactly those sorts of wildly contorted districts in order to make sure that black people were adequately represented in an effort to make sure they were not being discriminated against improperly.
Now with the ruling today, exactly the opposite problem is being alleged, that black people are being overrepresented in certain districts, and now that representation should be disbursed more. In any case, the Supreme Court did not say unequivocally that this was a problem, only that the lower court needed to examine the question.
More than likely, the Alabama legislature will be fine with the suggestion and redo the map to dilute the black vote out a bit more. Until now, who knew? This is not likely to be regarded a significant problem from the view of the state legislature. Until today, they had always been told the limits of the concerns were to make sure that black votes were NOT overly diluted.
I spent some time checking out the lawsuits (almost weekly it seems) by the DOJ against Texas under the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 was overturned and that was a Texas lawsuit that started that.
Re-districting always brings Lawsuits - they have now reached the point of the "Unintended Consequences". They WANTED these districts "packed" so they could guarantee a Black winner, now they are finding that the "packed" districts (which are wild when you check the shape of them) tend to me there is no growth of Black candidates in other Districts and they can't "grow" the more Black candidates.
The part that surprised me most is that the DOJ doesn't care how many Black citizens live in a District - they ONLY count the Black people who actually vote to determine the district shape. That's one of the reasons you find such odd shapes to the Districts.
I don't like any of it -- Representation should be based on something more like Zip Codes with the candidates living within the Zip Code(s) they are running to represent. That's what representative government is all about. That would totally take care of all Gerry Mandering - cluster the Zip Codes into Districts and they must all be touching .... not scattered out to find the people who actually vote. Register more voters and get them to to polls instead of searching out the few who actually vote.
That's what you would naturally think. But for 50 years now, the courts have required the creation of exactly those sorts of wildly contorted districts in order to make sure that black people were adequately represented in an effort to make sure they were not being discriminated against improperly.
Now with the ruling today, exactly the opposite problem is being alleged, that black people are being overrepresented in certain districts, and now that representation should be disbursed more. In any case, the Supreme Court did not say unequivocally that this was a problem, only that the lower court needed to examine the question.
More than likely, the Alabama legislature will be fine with the suggestion and redo the map to dilute the black vote out a bit more. Until now, who knew? This is not likely to be regarded a significant problem from the view of the state legislature. Until today, they had always been told the limits of the concerns were to make sure that black votes were NOT overly diluted.
There are a few things to look at. First off the reason those laws were put in place to begin with were the way the districts were drawn prior.
Secondly, there is a difference between drawing some minority based districts and then packing all minorities into a select few districts. This is also where it seems like the court is stepping in. You could basically have three districts, one 60% minority one 40% minority and 20% minority in an area that is roughly 60/40. That would be in compliance with those previous VRA standards.
Instead what is being drawn in some cases Is one district that is 85% minority, and two districts roughly 15% minority.
So basically instead of 1 district likely to elect a minority, 1 being very unlikely to and 1 with a potential to, the districts are being drawn in a way where one will, and the other 2 have no chance. This is due to the fact since virtually all the minorities are being shoved into the same district at a rate much higher than what is needed to be in compliance with the VRA rules as a way to get the minorities out of the other two districts.
Granted, this might be being done with more of a partisan reasoning, but due to how extreme racial voting is on both sides in the south it pretty much encompasses both.
There are a few things to look at. First off the reason those laws were put in place to begin with were the way the districts were drawn prior.
Secondly, there is a difference between drawing some minority based districts and then packing all minorities into a select few districts. This is also where it seems like the court is stepping in. You could basically have three districts, one 60% minority one 40% minority and 20% minority in an area that is roughly 60/40. That would be in compliance with those previous VRA standards.
Instead what is being drawn in some cases Is one district that is 85% minority, and two districts roughly 15% minority.
So basically instead of 1 district likely to elect a minority, 1 being very unlikely to and 1 with a potential to, the districts are being drawn in a way where one will, and the other 2 have no chance. This is due to the fact since virtually all the minorities are being shoved into the same district at a rate much higher than what is needed to be in compliance with the VRA rules as a way to get the minorities out of the other two districts.
Granted, this might be being done with more of a partisan reasoning, but due to how extreme racial voting is on both sides in the south it pretty much encompasses both.
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.
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.
