Surprise Supreme Court Decision Gives Boost To Democratic Hopes

Surprise SCOTUS ruling over Racial Gerrymanders

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...decision-gives-boost-to-democratic-hopes/amp/

I'm offering this story, as an alternative to what seems an abundance of trivial thread topics, at present. Only five seats need to switch hands, for the Democrats to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

This case comes from Alabama, which has six Congressional districts. One-third of Alabama's population, is black. Hence, from what remains of the Voting Rights Act, two of those districts, should have black majority populations. As drawn, only one of them does.



<Snip>

With active lawsuits challenging congressional boundaries as racial gerrymanders across the country, election handicapper Cook Political Report quickly shifted five House district ratings toward Democrats in the wake of the decision.

The court’s decision has also left a sense of relief in the party after fears the high court would uphold Alabama’s GOP-drawn map proved wrong.

“This decision will affect redistricting cases across the country and help deliver a House of Representatives that better reflects the diversity of our nation, ensuring all voices are represented equally,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said in a statement.

Expectations ran high that the Supreme Court would use Alabama’s case to narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that result in racial discrimination. The court temporarily blocked a lower ruling that cited the provision in striking down Alabama’s map.

But when the Supreme Court’s final decision was handed down on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberals to rule against Alabama. The court found the state diluted the power of Black voters, upholding Section 2 and giving voting rights advocates a 5-4 victory.

“The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew,” Roberts wrote, affirming the lower court’s order that the state create a second majority-Black district.
<End Snip>


Personally, I am less optimistic than those quoted in the the article, that this will deter other Red State legislatures from pushing their luck, with their own, illegal maps.

 

I must say that I don't see the win here.

I thought that red states created black districts to shoehorn the black voters into a few specialty districts to further water down the black voting power and maintain GOP red voter majority in the state as a whole.

So you flip one congress critter and that's not enough to make a difference. Meanwhile, blacks in Alabama further lose their voting power in their own state. That's not a win.

It's going to take years for all of the voting district cases to work their way through the courts. It won't be in time to affect the next election0.

 

Anyone that supports politicians redistricting districts in order for their team to be able to steal more power is the worse kind of person — one that will allow the theft of others voices because the wish to impose their will on the unwilling. A traitor to all America stands for.

Oddly these people typically call themselves patriots.

We need to completely revise how these districts are structured so that peoples voices are equally heard and distributed.

That said, that 4 members of the SCOTUS voted against this show just how fragile our democracy is.

 

What the hell are you talking about? What your first paragraph says you had thought, is correct. Alabama diluted the voice of their Black residents, by packing them into only one of their six districts, in which they are in the majority. But since blacks represent 1/3rd of Alabama's citizens, they should be the majority population in that same percentage of the voting districts. Because of this decision, Alabama has to redraw their lines, to put blacks in the majority of a second district. How is giving Alabama blacks a voice equal to their share of the population, not a win?

Yes, in the federal body, that is just one seat. But there are districts in other states that will be affected by this decision (any state which is similarly under representing their black populations). So that non partisan Cook Political Report handicapper, switched several predictions from "toss up" to "Democrat," and from "Republican" to "toss up." As there are only five seats standing between the current Republican House majority, and a Democratic majority, every seat counts.

Maybe you should read the article; you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the story, based on your comments.

 

Because what it does, unbeknowest to these people(including the judges) is that these blacks are now legally segregated in their 'minority-majority' districts. By creating a so-called second 'black district'(or any black district at all), it acts as if these voters are monolithic in nature and therefore truly deprives them not only of their voice, but their standing in the community.

Furthermore, because these are so-called 'black districts' what they don't realize is that the black districts, by design will be smaller than other districts since African-Americans make up about 12% of the US population, and this population is more or less evenly held across the 50 States.

Legal segregation in the name of equality! 21st century modern bullshit.

 

No, none of your comments are applicable. FYI, this ruling does not change where anyone resides. FYI #2: Blacks do not live all in just one place, in Alabama. They make up, however, a third of the state's population. But they are not evenly distributed, so that they would be one third, in all districts. There are (rural) places in which their percentage is much less than that, and other (urban) places, where they are actually the majority. Because of the way that our voting system is designed, the fairest (and only) way to give that one-third of Alabama's citizens, one-third of that state's voice in Congress (as well as in their own state legislature), is to make sure they represent the majority in one-third of the state's voting districts. This does not make the voting districts any smaller-- but it is too much to expect that I could, in this post, teach you math.

Nor does this treat black voters as "monolithic," any more than it treats white voters as monoliths, in any of the currently five out of six voting districts, in which whites are the majority. In fact, by creative line drawing, the gerrymandered district which puts the majority of blacks into just one district, treats blacks much more like a monolith, than making them a smaller majority, in two districts. Think it through. You apparently have not.

 

This is a good news. This verdict will effect few other states. I am looking forward to gerrymandering case in my State Wisconsin. Last 10 years republican controlled everything in WI, but that will change in 2024. I think by 2024 election DEMS will get at least 5 -7 congregational district back which will brings things much closer.

 

The congressional district in question consist of the two coastal counties which have their own district concerns and economic concerns. It is slight white majority. Blacks have been elected in white cites. Everyone gets along with our common interest and concerns. The push is to break that up and combine interior areas and a racial gerrymandering to dilute the white vote.

Which is more important, the social and economic and political interest of the people who live in those coastal counties or the color of their skin?

 

And thus, liberals love the USSC again.

 

LOL!!

But, it is good to see the USSC support democracy in this particular case.

This certainly isn't an area where the USSC has excelled.

 

I have said for the last 30 years that gerrymandering is the end of democracy. Allowing politicians to pick their voters, rather that the other way around, is not democracy. Republicans are much better at this than dems, because the instant they get majorities, they start moving districts and changing the rules to benefit themselves. YES< dems do it too, but not to the level the right has done it, as they are soooo much better at this.

 

It's not about math, it's about very basic political mapping. Think about what you said: Give that 1/3rd of Arizonan people, 1/3rd majority in their districts. So, think for a second: What about the other 2/3rds? The other 2/3rds will always be able to outvote the 1/3rd. And while they aren't physically moved, we know they are designated as living in 'X area' of this future 'second black majority district'

You might then ask me "What is the difference between that, and a mixed district?" In the mixed district, they have a more a say. How? They can directly participate and influence the majority decision making, But they can't do that as the 'second black-majority district'.

At best, maybe you do win that one district seat. But the blacks will be unable to influence Arizonan politics as a whole. The 1/3rd of them have been legally segregated.

So no, it's not fair. It wins the democrats a seat, but it disenfranchises these blacks, forever. Based on basic political science.

 

Supporting one ruling that should have been 9-0 and was 5-4 is hardly loving the SCOTUS. Looking at their public support in various polls shows how out of thought the installed court has become not to mention the numerous scandals.

 

False. And a ridiculous analysis. Have conservatives not badmouthed some SCOTUS decisions as illegitimate, and lauded other rulings, as if they should be enshrined for eternity? Your double standard, here, is indecently exposed.

Yet I have seen no liberals, in this thread, praising the integrity of the Court. In fact, I can only recall Cd8ed's pointing out, how close this decision was, and Will Readmore's noting that this basic area, is not one, in which the Court has typically excelled (at least, not of late). For the record, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to read into this thread, that I (or liberals, in general) no longer think that the SCOTUS needs an official set of ethical standards, or have changed our collective minds, about Justice Clarence Thomas being unworthy of his position.

 

First of all, the state in question is Alabama, not "Arizona." That is indicative of the mental effort, put into your argument.

To wit, your argument is that being just one-third of the voters in all districts, somehow would give blacks more input, than being the majority constituency, in one third of the state's districts. This is manifestly false. One third can always be outvoted, by two-thirds, thereby never having any effect with their votes. Let us use, for comparison, a situation with which many of us are personally familiar. My state is reliably Blue, in Presidential elections. Yet we certainly have many Republicans living here, as well. But, because they are the minority, in a winner take all system, their views on who should be our national leader, are essentially moot.

If, however, Connecticut used proportional allotment of delegates, those Republicans would be given a voice. The equivalent of this, is making blacks the majority group, in a proportion of districts, matching their statewide numbers.

Now, your turn: show how being in the minority, everywhere, gives a group more say, than being in the majority, in only some places. Like, for example, are the Republicans better off being the minority Party in both chambers of Congress, or the majority in at least one chamber?

By the way, besides being wrong, the basis of your argument is false: blacks would not be a one-third minority, in all districts. As I had already explained, in some places they are more, and in other places, less. So what are you suggesting-- that where blacks live should not matter, in their voting districts? That blacks should be divided evenly, between all six Congressional districts, so that they are an equal minority, in all of them? Congratulations, you have outdone the Republicans, with that suggestion, in silencing the black vote. Even Alabama Republicans, however, realize they could not get away with your plan.

 

Maybe I am not seeing something here, or thinking about this enough, but doesn't it seem like African Americans being mostly shoehorned into a few districts where they represent almost the entire population is more fair (to whites) than having them be a slight majority in many more districts?

That would kind of epitomize the sort of unfairness that districting can cause.

I mean, just think about the situation if the races were reversed, what people would be saying.

 

That sounds like a reasonable argument-- albeit without sufficient details, and except for a couple of things. If this area has only a "slight white majority," then common sense would suggest it could be changed to a black majority, with only a slight bit of change. Does that not seem to logically follow? Yet you are portraying it, as if the entire character of this district need be changed. The SCOTUS did not, AFAIK, dictate where Alabama's district lines need be; only that a second district, have a black majority. So your disagreement would seem to be not with the the ruling, per se, but with some proposed way, w/in your state, of achieving the ends of that ruling. If this proposal is a Democratic one, it is meaningless, since Republicans (I assume) control your state legislature. Therefore, your argument becomes only that Alabama Republicans should find a better way of implementing the SCOTUS decision, to minimize the changes in boundaries to this particular area, central to your argument.

 

Right-- but that is not what is happening. So, I will agree with your hypothetical. Let me know, if you want to discuss or debate, the actual ruling, and situation in question, in this thread.

The following post by Bluesguy, with my reply, might be a good place for you to start acquainting yourself, with the particulars of the matter.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-to-democratic-hopes.611182/#post-1074266671


P.S.-- it is the post, immediately preceding this one.

 

I think the problem is that a party is jiggering the system to ensure their party dominates.

The idea that blacks are so different that they don't vote like others in the communities where they live doesn't seem that likely. If the state wants to build a highway through the community, remove polling and registration sites and otherwise make it harder to vote, ignore water quality (like Flint), ignore school issues and quality in that community, make economic investments in one location but not others, etc., it's more than those of color who are going care about that.

It's just not valid to consider no more than skin color.

The USSC ruled against another gerrymandering case on the grounds that if the blacks were all grouped, they wouldn't win a seat anyway.

But, the point of the gerrymandering was to ensure that there wasn't a seat for like minded people in the community - pretending that only Blacks could possibly share a point of view in the community, and pitching THAT as a (false) justification for allowing the gerrymandering.

That is the USSC ruling AGAINST democracy.

 

Fact remains:
You only have kind words for the USSC when you agree with it.
Otherwise you have no use for it.
This is called "partisanship" and can be safely ignored.

 

Truth hurts, eh?

 

Seriously?

What about that has to do with party?

 

Is what you'd quoted from me--

DEFinning said: ↑
False. And a ridiculous analysis--

as much of my argument, as you can contend with?

 

So, as far as this decision-- was the Court, in your opinion, right or wrong? You realize, I'm sure, that SCOTUS decisions are limited, in scope, to the case that comes before them.

 

I haven't looked into this case in detail.

But, it looks like they supported the Civil Rights Act, which was serious legislation.

And, it appears that the ruling is getting good reviews from those who care about civil rights.

Plus, I think you've had good comments, too.

So, I'm going with a strong "right".