Surprise Supreme Court Decision Gives Boost To Democratic Hopes

There's no need for me to contend with anything else.

 

When all else fails, resort to insults. And you supposedly believe that you have the better of me in this exchange, nice. Since you didn't get it, let us use my examples. The second black-majority district will be created, and in that district someone will obviously run and win that district seat. That means they're represented right?

Only to the extent of their district. As for the whole state of Alabama, or the other 2/3rds, they will vote in their districts and they logically have more districts than the African-Americans(again, that we're contesting that this is legal segregation is astounding to me.) so therefore, the state of Alabama will largely remain Republican even with the existence of this newly created district.

(We haven't even addressed the possibility of non-blacks moving into the black majority districts and thus changing the composition, but this terrible idea is already bad enough on its premise)

All this newly created district does, is it creates a virtual voting bloc for Black Alabama residents. It didn't increase their voting rights, or their representation. All it did is give them the illusion of their own representative.

In reality, yes they are like the Democrats in a Republican stronghold. But there's one caveat that this second district creates(and was my main point.). Democrat minorities inside of a Republican stronghold can still influence that stronghold, simply by being inside of the stronghold. Not every Republican will or should vote for the Republican candidate. This is how Purple cities/States(AKA: Toss up states) are born.

But the new 1/3rd districts, will not have that ability. The 1/3rd districts will be self-contained pockets, meanwhile the other 2/3rds get to vote as though nothing happened, because functionally nothing happened.

And so to restate my conclusion: Legal segregation, in the form of 'voting rights'. It's hilarious.

 

They will go back to one of the previous maps and it is my Reps who district will be split as the previous maps showed but the Reps came up with this one which looks perfect reasonable



No gerrymandering those areas are quite different economically and socially. There is commonality of families and friends and fellow workers history. Blacks are NOT without representation they are a huge voting block and everyone needs their vote. My small town, including my vote, twice elected a black mayor and were probably 70% white. Mobile the same Sam Jones a VERY popular mayor. Blacks live in my neighborhood and the neighboring one is majority black and we all HAVE THE SAME ISSUES. Keep the trash picked up every week, the streets paved, the police in good force, the firemen on duty and good schools and parks and playgrounds.

 

What is hilarious, is that you call that an argument. I see none. So you are contending that having only one out of six districts, with blacks in the majority, is better for blacks, than being in the majority of two of the six? Now that's "hilarious."

I gave cogent arguments, as to how two was better than one, and you do not seem to have answered those arguments. So yes, I do believe that my argument has trounced your unsupported contentions. As to my pointing out the weaknesses in your argument, including that you were naming the wrong state-- that is fair game, in a debate; it is not merely the hurling of "insults." My arguments succeeded quite well, so "all else" had not failed. My remarks were all made in reference to your argument, not to you, personally. It was your own erroneous and ill- thought out words, that have led you to feel insulted. So, in trying to hold me accountable for your embarrassment, you are misplacing the blame.

 

This adds nothing to your argument. For a comparison to be made, you would need show both the "before" and the "after" maps.

 

It's not that having 1/6 districts as a majority are better than 2/6. This ''second' district' is basically going to be drawn in the map, and it will certainly include territories that were a part of other districts in the past.

These two districts, by themselves won't be able to impact the influence of Alabama politics, but in fact can be ignored by the numerically larger districts. All that's been done here, is the creation of an additional congress seat, but a diluting at the state and local level(which is far more concerning for these individuals at wit large.)

And the power of being a minority isn't really being appreciated. Again, had these people been kept in the original map outline, formerly 'safe' Republican regions might have been a tossup. But Cook's predictions on this will prove to be wrong. Politically scientifically this dilutes the vote by the creation of the second district, and further entrenches the majority party in Alabama politics.

It's an inherent flaw in trying to determine voters by way of geography.

 

Why? That is not different from what is was until the lawsuit and a judge demanded they be redrawn. My point being they are set up for the commonality of the people based on a varied to factors. RACE should NEVER be a factor.

 

Why? Are you kidding? So you are saying, that there is no other possible way of grouping those towns or counties, that would seem, just looking at them, to make as much sense? Well OK, be prepared to be proven wrong. In district #2, there are two areas-- Elmore & another that is not really legible (Audauga?), which are further away from the coast, than the areas of Lownes, Montgomery, Wilcox, or Dallas (all in district 7), or than Macon or Russel (in district 3). So, it is not obvious, that any change would only be less logical. Of course, I know nothing about the numbers of people in each of these counties, because you have not given squat for information, to defend your argument. But there are so many places, on the map you show, among all the districts, which could conceivably be juggled that, without your giving reasons why those changes are unworkable, your map argument is a huge fail.

 

So what? That happens, in every state, every time the census causes it to either gain or lose a Representative. (IOW, your citing this, is not an argument against it).

Your idea about the size of the districts is still erromeous-- I have no idea where you are getting it. Can you cite a source for your belief, that this is the case?

As far as impacting Alabama politics-- that argument is almost too inane to answer. No single district can, on its own, make policy for Alabama-- I am not using your words "impact the influence of Alabama politics," because that is a nonsense phraseology; what exactly does that mean? Every state representative, however, could potentially impact Alabama law. And also, we are talking about federal Representatives, aren't we? So would you be making the ridiculously false argument-- after it took 15 votes, to even elect a Speaker of the House-- that a single House vote, makes no difference? So it changes nothing, to have a black Democrat in a seat, rather than a white Republican? Are you willing to prove that, by voting for black Democrats, instead of white Republicans, from now on? Sure, we could replace all white Rs, with black D's, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference-- you can't be serious, with your argument, that different demographics might not result in different elected representatives, and that these different officials, might not lead to different legislation.

Please just take a nap, until you can present something a little less ludicrous.

 

And those areas are part of the river delta which feeds the coast, what we will end up in order to dilute the white vote in some areas will be racial gerrymandering. The districts are just fine like they are. Majority white districts elect blacks, what's the problem? We are supposed to be racially blind.

 

Saying that you like the map, in its current form, is not an argument against altering it-- especially since, according to your claim that it is only a "slight" white majority which would be changed to a black majority, those changes need only be minor.

 

For the reasons stated it is. Doing so for racial reasons is not an argument to override that. What should it be gerrymander to make a black majority solely based on race rather than the commonalities of the people who live in the district?

 

You have not shown that it is an either/or proposition. As I'd said, without you showing both "before" and "after," maps, there is zero evidence that the counties which are switched in to the new district, will have anything less in common with the rest of that district, than the counties which are swapped out. The changes will be at the inner borders, not along the coastline; and I'd enumerated options, along that interior part of the district, which are actually closer to the coast, than some of the counties, which are currently a part of district #2.

 

I’ve always wondered about that. Is packing as many blacks or minorities into a single majority black or minority district actually enhancing their vote or diluting their vote? Yes, it guarantees a black democrat will be elected to congress, no doubt. But what about the rest of the state? Here in Georgia the congressional vote was relatively split between Republicans and Democrats. Yet the Republicans now have a 9-5 congressional advantage. Why? Majority black minority districts. 5 of them as Georgia is 35% black. All 5 electing black democrats. In those 5 districts the democrat racked up or won by 75-35 or 80-20 while the GOP was winning their 9 districts roughly 55-45 on average. Georgia has 14 congressional districts.


The question again, are minority majority black districts as mandated by federal law actually enhancing the black vote or diluting it? If the black vote was spread over the entire state instead of being packed into 5 congressional districts, Georgia congressional districts would be probably 7-7 for each party. Maybe enhancing the black vote as they’re guaranteed to be represented by a black. But definitely diluting the Democratic Party vote. If I were a republican, I’d be embracing the federal mandated majority black districts to the hilt. Here in Georgia, the republican controlled legislature certainly did. The federal courts have stepped in previously in 2000 and 2010 forcing Georgia to draw an additional majority black minority district. This time, there was no need for a federal judge to step in, the legislature did it on their own. So, is this enhancing or diluting the black vote?

 

Pardon me, but where the hell do you get that? You are utterly confused. First, the federal mandate, does not force states to pack "as many blacks or minorities into a single majority black or minority district," beyond 51%. It is actually Republicans who, if they cannot prevent blacks from being a majority in any district, will try to compress as many as possible into a fewer number of districts. That is not what the federal mandate does.

Secondly, if blacks are 35% of the population, how could they possibly be the majority, in half of the 14 congressional districts? That is nonsense, on its face. They could, at best, be a majority in a third (5) of the districts. Think about it.

 

LOL, you miss read me, spreading blacks through all 14 districts would help the Democrats. Where did I get this compress or pack as many blacks as possible into a single CD. A federal judge ruled Georgia had to do just that back in both 2000 and 2010. The ruling stated Georgia in those two instances hadn’t drawn enough majority black districts to represent the black population. Thus, my use of the term, federal mandate. The Alabama ruling was the same. Alabama’s black percentage of the population wasn’t sufficiently represented by one lone majority black district, Alabama must have two.


I’m just going by what the federal courts have ruled.

 

So what is your point? You started out, wondering if the mandate does any good, didn't you? Well, to stick to the case at hand, are blacks better represented, if they have one majority district, as the legislature had drawn things, or two, as the federal law mandates? I think it is clearly, the latter.

 

True, in a way. But if blacks were spread across all districts, chances are their votes would give the Democrats a district or two more. Remember in the black districts, using Georgia, the 5 majority black districts voted on average 80-20 or there about electing 5 black Democratic congress critters. While in the other 9 districts, republicans were winning them roughly 55-45 giving the GOP 9 congressional critters when the overall vote state wide was fairly evenly split.


The point, with majority black districts, the end results was a 9-5 GOP edge. If there were no majority black districts, the final results probably would have been a 7-7 tie base on the statewide vote totals. Perhaps the question should be, instead of enhancing or diluting black voting power, does having these majority black district dilute those who vote Democratic, their voting power? It seems the end results is yes, 9-5 vs 7-7. Think about it.

 

I now understand your point, but it is a moot one. There is no legal basis, for making sure that both Parties get equal representation; only that the black vote, because of past practices, is not underrepresented. It would also be, regardless of the current reality, completely outrageous, for "black" voting rights, to be equated exclusively with the Democratic Party. Blacks have the right, you know, to be Republicans, or Independents, or anything else they choose.


That hopefully settled, we can consider your strictly hypothetical 7-7 split. You understand, though, that black votes are not taken from wherever they happen to live, to be either dumped into one big black district bowl, or else sprinkled liberally, all across the state. Blacks are not evenly distributed across the state; they are much more numerous in urban areas, than in rural ones. Their votes, regardless, will only be counted as coming from whatever place that they actually live. No creative line drawing, is going to distribute the blacks in Atlanta (since you keep returning to your Georgia example) all across Georgia.

For someone who I thought was very meticulous about his numbers, your pulling seemingly out of thin air, the idea that "the final results probably would have been a 7-7 tie base(d) on the statewide vote totals," is not the kind of thing that I would have expected you to so obstinately cling to. So, if you actually have looked at these "statewide vote totals," and they do seem they would lend themselves to giving Democrats a majority in half of the state's districts, just by small shifts in which district black voters are counted for, then it would be welcomed for you to show this. What I think you may mean, though, is that, statewide, there are as many Democrats as Republicans. But that does not mean that they are both evenly distributed, throughout the state. Where Democrats are in the majority, it may be by greater percentages, in fewer districts, than Republicans. Perhaps this is due, specifically, to the black population. But that does not automatically mean, these numbers could be used to give Dems the majority in more districts. If it could be, then it would only be something that Dems might want to keep in mind, if they somehow get a majority in the legislature, after a census.

 

From our local weekly this morning.
***As an side we lost our local daily newspaper this year. I had not subscribed since it went to three days a week as it became "history" not news. We are luck to have Lagniappe as our weekly and they do an outstanding job from news/politics to arts and sports. It remains a free off the stand publication but I do subscribe for home delivery, have to have something to read in the "library", and online. They do get a good chunk of revenue as the only means to publish all the public announcements required by law. That can run 3-4 pages of notices. There is talk in the capital of changing that law so they can be posted on the Internet as so many locations have NO printed papers. I hope it doesn't cause an end to so great local journalism*****

OK back to the article this morning


Views differ on Alabama's political landscape after SCOTUS ruling

....In his dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote Section 2 refers to restrictive standards of voter eligibility and not to districting plans. He wrote concurring justices did not consider what the possibility of more than one “minority-controlled districts” could do to Alabama’s political landscape, pointing to Mobile and Baldwin counties as an example.

“The Federal Judiciary now upholds their demand — overriding the state’s undoubted interest in preserving the core of its existing districts, its plainly reasonable desire to maintain the Gulf Coast region as a cohesive political unit, and its persuasive arguments that a race-neutral districting process would not produce anything like the districts the plaintiffs seek,” Thomas wrote.

[and the irony here as pointed out by Rep. Carl whose district would be effected]


While he praised Sewell as a colleague in Congress, U.S. Rep. Jerry Carl, R-District 1, said the court’s ruling effectively ensures she will not hold office again because it reduces the Black majority in her district from around 70 percent to just over 50 percent. Historically, Black voter turnout in Alabama has been lower than White turnout, which could prove to be a GOP advantage in districts where the demographics are closer to even.

“If they change that to 51 or 52 percent, and that’s where they’re supposed to be going with it, there will not be a Democrat in Washington [D.C.] from the state of Alabama,” he said Thursday. “The Republican Party can walk away with all seven seats if we play this right. What the court has done without knowing what they were doing [is] they have stripped away that one minority district that they got now, because we will take it at 51 percent.”

The court’s ruling “caught us all by surprise,” Carl said, adding he hated the likelihood Mobile will be split into two districts “going after the minority.”

...“Almost every map I’ve seen by the plaintiffs splits Mobile along racial lines,” Pringle said. “Mobile is a community of interest, Mobile and Baldwin are communities of interest, communities of commonality. We’re going to have to comply with what the Supreme Court has told us to do, and the Supreme Court has told us we will have to draw two majority minority districts.”
https://www.lagniappemobile.com/news/views-differ-on-alabamas-political-landscape-after-scotus-ruling/article_a8bb80da-0a1e-11ee-ac81-2fa42ee7848b.html?utm_source=lagniappemobile.com&utm_campaign=/newsletter/optimize/hot-off-the-press/?-dc=1686767446&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

Look at the map I posted. The plan would cherry pick the biggest city out of the middle kf the coastal counties and put those voters in a group with voters in Montgomery based SOLELY ON RACE. Is that how we are supposed to run things?

 

But that is the point, to get another Democrat representative in Congress and using race based politics to do it.

 

See above...

 

And actually they are not mandated by law. It is a "remedy" supposedly. If you go back to the debates over the civil and voing rights bills it was assured that they would not result in quotas and percentages and numbers. That race simply could not be a factor.

 

No, that was not the point, of the Voting Rights Act. And I am sure it was not used as the rationale of any of the Justices, in this case.

 

No, that makes no sense. So, as I had initially said, your complaint is not with the ruling, per se, but with the in-state plans that you are seeing, to comply with that ruling. I do not see how what you are saying, could be possible-- that part of the western part of District #1, is going to become part of District #2, to the east. That cannot be the only way to accomplish this, can it? You are saying that Mobile and Montgomery, are the only two cities in the state, with black majorities? That would seem to be a bit problematic. But it also doesn't seem correct.

I will say, for the last time, without your giving me specific numbers, I have no basis for accepting your argument. For example, Mobile has 195k citizens. How many are black, vs. white? What are those numbers for the part that will remain part of District #1, as opposed to the numbers for the part which will be annexed to district #2. Then where is District #1 going to expand, to make up for its lost citizens-- part of District #2? If it is not going to be an even swap between those, then is District #7 going to lose citizens to Mobile's District #1, but pick up some of Montgomery's District #2 citizens? What is the total population figure, for each of the districts?