Skip to comments.Supreme Court to hear Alabama redistricting challenge
Posted on 06/02/2014 9:44:25 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider a challenge from Alabama Democrats who say a Republican-drawn legislative map intentionally packs black Democrats into a few voting districts, giving them too little influence in the Legislature.
The justices agreed to hear a pair of appeals from the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and other Democratic lawmakers who contend the new map created in 2012 illegally limits black voting strength and makes it harder to elect Democrats outside the majority-black districts.
A panel of three federal judges had ruled 2-1 last year that the new districts were not discriminatory and did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Good idea to keep the 114% voting districts to a minimum....
I thought that the Voter “Rights” Act was no longer controlling?
SCOTUS struck down Section 4 of the VRA. These cases present questions about VRA Sections 2 & 5 violations (and 14A):
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
Issue: (1) Whether a state violates the requirement of one person, one vote by enacting a state legislative redistricting plan that results in large and unnecessary population deviations for local legislative delegations that exercise general governing authority over counties; and (2) whether Alabamas legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama
Issue: (1) Whether Alabamas effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the states new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim; and (2) whether aspects of the states map also violated both the purpose and results tests of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, through the systematic dilution of minority voting strength and by the elimination of certain majority-minority districts.
© 2014 SCOTUSblog
wasn’t the whole point of the VRA of 1965 to ensure the creation of majority-minority districts, which is what Ala. did? careful what you wish for, liberals
They’re hypocrites. They SUPPORTED these strange, snake-like districts in order to ensure guaranteed numbers of black electoral victories in those races. And NOW they them changed again?
Quite frankly, I prefer districts drawn by “citizen committees” as a good number of states have done. Tired of politicians on all sides gerrymandering. Be assured that here in CA it is HELPING the GOP with citizens in charge.
Political Parties should never, ever be in charge of re-redistricting.
Elections have consequences.
They certainly do and it ain’t just redistricting effects every ten years. SCOTUS appointees affect us for generations!