that the supreme court decisions seem really insightful when they go in favor of one party and are "awful" when they go against the other?
isn't it surprising
- Thread starter baltimorened
- Start date
The racists are really mad they can’t have their racism.
It completely guts the voting rights act, there’s a reason it existed. When John Roberts makes his whole legal career going back 40 years a way to roll back the Civil Rights Movement…
“It’s racist to make sure an historically oppressed minority can elect representatives of their choosing”.
Correct.
The Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act because it discriminated based on race.
The Rooney rule discriminates based on race
It is obviously illegal. Not even close.
You have to interview a minority candidate for senior positions in the FO or HC. That’s it
Is this like comparing in a sports game when you lose the game to blame the officials and not your performance on the field
I live in a liberal/blue district...if I'm a conservative/libertarian my vote really doesn't count. I don't get to elect a representative of my choosing either...
To ignore the history of our country and the racism that still exists is a hell of a way to try and make a point.
I think the point that was being made by the court is that basing decisions solely on race is illegal. We can debate forever over history and the racism that still exists, but aren't we a nation of laws?
Why is it illegal now but wasn't illegal for the past 60 years?
Indeed, racism does still exist, just as enhanced political and societal participation does. That said, given our binary politics, I do think that the crap we're experiencing in the redistricting realm is a function of politics rather than race. I'm sure R's would be more than happy to "pack" or "crack" white urban D's just as much as black urban D's, if by doing so they could maximize R concentration in suburban/exurban/rural districts. Directionally, I actually think we're right to reorient toward intent rather than effects, at least until a proponent of the effects-based approach articulates a credible standard other than proportionality as a measure of 'success' or "acceptability". If there's a problem with yesterday's decision, it's that it makes it incredibly difficult to prove an intentional case (whether in redistricting or other contexts), and it's important that we preserve the ability to do so.
What I don't like about an "intent" framing is how desperately difficult intent is to prove. If I wanted to make a law to bulldoze an area of town that just so happened to only be inhabited by black people, I'm not sure "well we just wanted the space" should be sufficient.
I think SCOTUS had consistently ruled it was legal until this week, no? It's not like the VRA hasn't been under constant assault this whole time.
When Republicans redraw their congressional districts to specifically reduce the number of districts that are majority black or Hispanic, is that illegal?
Good question
DeSantis purposely dismantled a Black congressional district, attorney says as trial over map begins
Lawyers representing Black voters told a three-judge federal panel that Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis violated the U.S.
apnews.com
Texas is accused of racial motives in redrawing congressional maps
The state defends its mid-decade redistricting as a purely partisan endeavor to help Republicans. But plaintiffs challenging the maps in court say there was more to it than that.
www.votebeat.org
The Civil Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on race. So, if they are using race it's illegal. Seems simple enough to me.
If it was up to me, I would go to a grid system and get rid of gerrymandering all together.
Once you found out that this would benefit democrats you would hate it.
Republicans can’t afford to promote democracy because their ideas are not popular (or successful), so they have to limit voting access. This is another obvious effort to restrict access to voting and adequate representation of the public’s desires.
Republicans are not Americans. Trump supporters are not Americans. These “people” are enemies of the state and domestic terrorists.
Which civil rights act? And what specifically does it say about racial discrimination?
as I posted yesterday, I read somewhere the judge enjoined the state from going through with the election as part of the decision.
Maybe I misread because Gov Newsom wouldn't put out a misleading post
I asked Claude the following:
Q: As part of the Callais decision, Landry issued an emergency executive order to suspend the House primary even though it had already started and 4000 people had submitted mail-in votes. A judge enjoined the decision but could Landry have continued with the election schedule instead of suspending it if he wanted to?
A: This is a really interesting legal question, and the answer is likely yes — Landry probably could have let the election proceed, and several legal experts say he had stronger legal footing doing so than suspending it.
Here's the core of the argument:
The Purcell Principle would have protected him. The Supreme Court's Purcell v. Gonzales (2006) precedent prevents courts from ordering states to make major ballot changes too close to an election. Attorney General Murrill herself acknowledged this at a press conference, pointing out that courts would be prohibited from ordering the state to do anything under Purcell. She said: "The Purcell principle is a principle that says that courts, particularly federal courts, should not be monkeying with state election dates when it's too close to an election." In other words, the same doctrine that protects states from last-minute court-ordered changes would likely have shielded Louisiana from being forced to switch maps mid-election. Louisiana IlluminatorLouisiana Illuminator
The Callais ruling didn't actually order the election stopped. Plaintiffs challenging Landry's suspension argued that "The Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais did not order the May 16 election canceled — and did not authorize it. The judgment in Callais is not yet even final." This is a procedural point — under the Supreme Court's rules, the court normally sends a copy of its opinion and judgment to the lower court, making the decision final, 32 days after it is issued. That process hadn't happened yet when Landry issued his order. Democracy DocketSCOTUSblog
Legal experts disagreed with Landry's framing. Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, said it was not clear that Louisiana was right to delay the congressional primary. The Supreme Court's ruling does not throw out Louisiana's existing congressional districts for the current cycle, and the Purcell doctrine would apply. Louisiana had actually used maps for congressional elections after they were ruled unconstitutional in both 2022 and 2024, precisely on the basis of the Purcell ruling. So there was direct precedent for running an election on a map even after a court found it constitutionally deficient. NOLA.comNOLA.com
What Landry and Murrill actually argued was that a lower court's earlier injunction blocking the map — which had been on hold pending the Supreme Court's review — effectively snapped back into force once Callais was decided. They said Louisiana was "enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map," and that the lower court ruling blocking the map was now in effect. But critics noted that this reinstatement was itself legally unsettled and unfinalized. NOLA.com
The bottom line: Landry had a colorable legal argument for suspending the election, but the weight of independent legal opinion — and the historical precedent of Louisiana itself running elections on maps under injunction in 2022 and 2024 — suggests he almost certainly could have continued with the scheduled election. Purcell would have been a strong shield against any court ordering him to stop. The suspension looks less like a legal necessity and more like a political choice to give the Republican-controlled legislature an opportunity to redraw the maps.
Wait, wut?! The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court require congressional districts within each state to be as equal in population as "practicable," typically aiming for nearly identical numbers of residents based on the census every 10 years. Districts are redrawn to correct population imbalances, though perfect mathematical equality is rare due to boundaries, and small deviations are permitted.
Unfortunately, there is no state in which the residents of that state are distributed evenly in a grid pattern, so the configuration of congressional districts is necessarily going to be irregularly shaped in order to comply with the Constitutional directive that each district have roughly the same number of residents.
If only life was that simple, Piggy ...