84
Gotta love the coding here.
R's: Can we be say... THIS racist in our districting?
Court: For the second time no.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4186 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I feel like the article didn't give me enough information. I think Louisiana was the state that got slapped down by a court for something or other racially discriminating in the past, but I didn't see mention of that so maybe it was another southern racist shithole like Alabama? Anyway, I guess this'll likely come round in a future news cycle. Maybe I'll learn more about it from an article then.
Yes that's what happened. One court slapped it down for unfairly reducing minority representation in violation of the voting rights act, so this map was drawn to increase minority representation. Now these two judges struck down the new map saying basically "I think it should be unconstitutional to consider race at all when drawing districts, even if it's to make sure they aren't being unfairly diluted, voting rights act is unconstitutional." It's supreme court bait to try and get them to strike down more of the voting rights act with their same reasoning they used to strike down affirmative action policies. If the supreme court decides to take this up eventually, I'd say the voting rights act days are numbered unfortunately with this court.
Thanks for clarifying. I'd say we're about fucked.
Pretty sure this will end up like the similar Alabama case in 2022. "Sure it illegally disenfranchises voters, but it would be unfair to fix it so close to an election. Go ahead and rig this election, but promise to change (not fix, just change) it after the election."
It seems like we are always to close to an election if the change being discussed would be positive.
Never too close to jam a conservative justice onto the Supreme Court though. Or trash part of the government on the way out.
Someone should do something