Avatar feed
Responses: 4
SrA John Monette
5
5
0
Hopefully there will be many more decisions like this.
(5)
Comment
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
3 y
Courts ordering that minorities are required to have more seats then their equivalent population? That's a good rule?

Despite SCOTUS already saying that maps are NOT required to apportion by race?

Alabama is 26.64% black according to 2020 census. 2 of 7 seats would be 28.57% - which is greater than their representative population.

Yes, the difference is minor. But the court is actually ORDERING greater representation. Which is not the court's role.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Signal Support Systems Specialist
3
3
0
Awesome ruling.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Casey O'Mally
3
3
0
Bad ruling, IMHO. If it was done to intentionally disenfranchise blacks, which is nowhere discussed in this article, then sure. But realistically, making every district 27% black would be the "proper" way to go, if we really want to discuss race. I haven't seen the map, but SCOTUS has already rules that PARTISAN gerrymandering is perfectly legal, it is RACIAL gerrymandering that is a no-go. And the plaintiffs have to PROVE that it was racial and not partisan. A simple "we should have more by the numbers" does not meet that threshold, yet this is what the judge ruled.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close