Alabama Just Told the Supreme Court to Pound Sand

[1srelluc]

Alabama Just Told the Supreme Court to Screw Off

townhall.com

“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black,” reported the Associated Press in June. “The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s election.”

The new map must have two majority black districts, the edict handed down by the nation’s highest court. A special session of the state legislature was gaveled in the Heart of Dixie, but the new map didn’t have a second majority-black district. A move that many view as flipping off the Supreme Court.

Libs are pissed.

“Alabama Republicans are intentionally drawing political retention maps at the expense of Black Alabamians — in defiance of the Supreme Court and the Alabama district court. It is a continuation of the state’s long, sordid history of disenfranchising Black voters,” she said, promising to challenge the maps in court.


The court left wiggle room in the decision. Of course the losing party is going to exploit it. You just have to make a minor change and let it work back through the courts.

LOL....The inefficiency of the process is half of the game.

That said it sounds like some sort of ethnic preference to require something be made up of a majority of a single ethnicity.

Take CT for example, there are about 35% of CT voters there who are white Republicans, but there are no Republican representatives in congress from CT so should SCOTUS rule that 1/3 of the congressional districts in CT be majority white Republican?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Didn't they try before? Something about the 82nd airborne motivating them to act properly...

 

[Esdraelon]

Didn't they try before? Something about the 82nd airborne motivating them to act properly...

Let them come.

 

[Votto]

Alabama Just Told the Supreme Court to Screw Off

townhall.com

“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black,” reported the Associated Press in June. “The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s election.”

The new map must have two majority black districts, the edict handed down by the nation’s highest court. A special session of the state legislature was gaveled in the Heart of Dixie, but the new map didn’t have a second majority-black district. A move that many view as flipping off the Supreme Court.

Libs are pissed.

“Alabama Republicans are intentionally drawing political retention maps at the expense of Black Alabamians — in defiance of the Supreme Court and the Alabama district court. It is a continuation of the state’s long, sordid history of disenfranchising Black voters,” she said, promising to challenge the maps in court.


The court left wiggle room in the decision. Of course the losing party is going to exploit it. You just have to make a minor change and let it work back through the courts.

LOL....The inefficiency of the process is half of the game.

That said it sounds like some sort of ethnic preference to require something be made up of a majority of a single ethnicity.

Take CT for example, there are about 35% of CT voters there who are white Republicans, but there are no Republican representatives in congress from CT so should SCOTUS rule that 1/3 of the congressional districts in CT be majority white Republican?

We are at a point there blue states already ignore red laws they don't like, like immigartion laws

Now all that is left is for red states to ignore blue laws they don't like, and the divorce can be complete and not a shot fired.

Yay.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Let them come.

They'd exterminate you by the bushel.

 

[Synthaholic]

This is not going to end well. This does not go back to the Supremes. This goes back to the slightly lower court (District?) who will likely appoint a Special Master who will draw the map for Alabama, which Alabama will then have to live with.

Fuck around and find out, 2023.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Republicans and Democrats love gerrymandering as long as they are the ones who get to do it. It's only unfair when the other tribe does it to them.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Vastator]

Alabama Just Told the Supreme Court to Screw Off

townhall.com

“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black,” reported the Associated Press in June. “The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s election.”

The new map must have two majority black districts, the edict handed down by the nation’s highest court. A special session of the state legislature was gaveled in the Heart of Dixie, but the new map didn’t have a second majority-black district. A move that many view as flipping off the Supreme Court.

Libs are pissed.

“Alabama Republicans are intentionally drawing political retention maps at the expense of Black Alabamians — in defiance of the Supreme Court and the Alabama district court. It is a continuation of the state’s long, sordid history of disenfranchising Black voters,” she said, promising to challenge the maps in court.


The court left wiggle room in the decision. Of course the losing party is going to exploit it. You just have to make a minor change and let it work back through the courts.

LOL....The inefficiency of the process is half of the game. Confederacy
That said it sounds like some sort of ethnic preference to require something be made up of a majority of a single ethnicity.

Take CT for example, there are about 35% of CT voters there who are white Republicans, but there are no Republican representatives in congress from CT so should SCOTUS rule that 1/3 of the congressional districts in CT be majority white Republican?

Yeah... We do shit like that. Fun fact... The first Capitol of the Confederacy was right here in "Sweet Home Alabama".

 

[candycorn]

It, yet again, highlights that we need to assign congressional districts at random by a lottery system.

Take all of the zip codes in a state and divide them by population based on census data. If you have 10 seats in the US House, you divide them into 10 groups; A-J.

District 1 gets assigned the first zip code drawn at random of Group A. District 2 gets the 2nd zip code drawn at random of Group A. District 3 gets the 3rd zip code drawn at random of group A and so on.

Once all of Group A's districts are distributed, you move on to the next most populous zip codes--Group B. District 10 goes first, followed by 9, 8, 7 etc...

When you get to C, District 2 goes first followed by 3, 4, 5 etc...

At the end, you will have ten districts that are diverse, not gerry mannered to empower/disenfranchise, have roughly the same population, and above all else are completely unsafe in terms of retaining the elected official who is the incumbent.

Every seat in the House is put into play every two years because you can no longer count on your buddies in the state legislature drawing your district so you cannot lose.

 

[alang1216]

Alabama Just Told the Supreme Court to Screw Off

townhall.com

“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black,” reported the Associated Press in June. “The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s election.”

The new map must have two majority black districts, the edict handed down by the nation’s highest court. A special session of the state legislature was gaveled in the Heart of Dixie, but the new map didn’t have a second majority-black district. A move that many view as flipping off the Supreme Court.

Libs are pissed.

“Alabama Republicans are intentionally drawing political retention maps at the expense of Black Alabamians — in defiance of the Supreme Court and the Alabama district court. It is a continuation of the state’s long, sordid history of disenfranchising Black voters,” she said, promising to challenge the maps in court.


The court left wiggle room in the decision. Of course the losing party is going to exploit it. You just have to make a minor change and let it work back through the courts.

LOL....The inefficiency of the process is half of the game.

That said it sounds like some sort of ethnic preference to require something be made up of a majority of a single ethnicity.

Take CT for example, there are about 35% of CT voters there who are white Republicans, but there are no Republican representatives in congress from CT so should SCOTUS rule that 1/3 of the congressional districts in CT be majority white Republican?

But I thought the GOP was the party of law and order?

 

[Synthaholic]

It, yet again, highlights that we need to assign congressional districts at random by a lottery system.

Take all of the zip codes in a state and divide them by population based on census data. If you have 10 seats in the US House, you divide them into 10 groups; A-J.

District 1 gets assigned the first zip code drawn at random of Group A. District 2 gets the 2nd zip code drawn at random of Group A. District 3 gets the 3rd zip code drawn at random of group A and so on.

Once all of Group A's districts are distributed, you move on to the next most populous zip codes--Group B. District 10 goes first, followed by 9, 8, 7 etc...

When you get to C, District 2 goes first followed by 3, 4, 5 etc...

At the end, you will have ten districts that are diverse, not gerry mannered to empower/disenfranchise, have roughly the same population, and above all else are completely unsafe in terms of retaining the elected official who is the incumbent.

Every seat in the House is put into play every two years because you can no longer count on your buddies in the state legislature drawing your district so you cannot lose.

I've always believed that a computer could draw up districts as squarely in shape as possible, based on population, with zero input into ideological bent of the district. Let the chips fall where they may.

Now, with AI, it should be even easier.

 

[Synthaholic]

But I thought the GOP was the party of law and order?

They just play that on TV.

 

[candycorn]

I've always believed that a computer could draw up districts as squarely in shape as possible, based on population, with zero input into ideological bent of the district. Let the chips fall where they may.

Now, with AI, it should be even easier.

I think my idea--non contiguous districts--is better frankly. Humans self-segregate. So if you identify with the majority of your district; you have an advantage that is built in before you list a single policy position.

So I think the non-contiguous district is preferable on that alone. I think you end up with someone who actually has to keep their seat if they want it. I think you'd end up with more and more new legislators who simply resign because it is no longer an easy gig.

Parties often 'groom' (I know thats a bad word) someone for a seat. Rove wanted this ass-hat named Michael Berry to get a seat in Texas and literally tried to have the state draw him a district in Houston. It didn't work and he pretty much destroyed his higher office career (at the time it was big news) when he said he hoped someone blew up a mosque. I think he found Jesus after that or whatever . Anyway...parties will be completely powerless to protect their own.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think my idea--non contiguous districts--is better frankly. Humans self-segregate. So if you identify with the majority of your district; you have an advantage that is built in before you list a single policy position.

So I think the non-contiguous district is preferable on that alone. I think you end up with someone who actually has to keep their seat if they want it. I think you'd end up with more and more new legislators who simply resign because it is no longer an easy gig.

Parties often 'groom' (I know thats a bad word) someone for a seat. Rove wanted this ass-hat named Michael Berry to get a seat in Texas and literally tried to have the state draw him a district in Houston. It didn't work and he pretty much destroyed his higher office career (at the time it was big news) when he said he hoped someone blew up a mosque. I think he found Jesus after that or whatever . Anyway...parties will be completely powerless to protect their own.

But in a state as large as Texas you can't have a Congresscritter representing a section of El Paso, a section of Houston, and a section of Brownsville. They have to be from a district to understand the needs of a district, and that kind of traveling would not be feasible.

 

[cnm]

That said it sounds like some sort of ethnic preference to require something be made up of a majority of a single ethnicity.

Take CT for example, there are about 35% of CT voters there who are white Republicans, but there are no Republican representatives in congress from CT

Is white Republican an ethnicity?

 

[Synthaholic]

The moron knuckledragger who started this thread sounds overjoyed that Alabama told the Supremes to "Pound sand". He sounds like he wants SCOTUS to be marginalized and ignored. What happens when Connecticut and Massachusetts bans guns?

 

[Synthaholic]

Is white Republican an ethnicity?

This kind of stuff hurts their heads to think about.

 

[candycorn]

But in a state as large as Texas you can't have a Congresscritter representing a section of El Paso, a section of Houston, and a section of Brownsville. They have to be from a district to understand the needs of a district, and that kind of traveling would not be feasible.

It would be problematic. Reasonable accommodations could be made.

I'd want to ask you though...how often does someone who lives in El Paso, Houston or Brownsville actually physically see their representative? When I lived there (Houston), my representative was Jack Fields, Gene Green, Michael Andrews. I met Fields...once at a meeting. I think I met Green once in a restaurant or ball game. Andrews? He was a rumor. So I don't discount your statement that the largeness of the state may injure my ideal...but I don't completely embrace it either.