Posted on Jul 21, 2023
Alabama GOP refuses to draw second Black district, despite Supreme Court order
1.3K
110
15
6
6
0
Alabama Republicans rejected calls to draw a second majority-Black congressional district this week, instead creating maps that Democrats and advocates say completely ignore a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal court ordered the state to redraw its congressional map last year to include two districts where Black voters make up voting-age majorities, “or something quite close to it.” The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling this year, prompting the Legislature to call a special session to redraw the map this week.
A federal court ordered the state to redraw its congressional map last year to include two districts where Black voters make up voting-age majorities, “or something quite close to it.” The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling this year, prompting the Legislature to call a special session to redraw the map this week.
Alabama GOP refuses to draw second Black district, despite Supreme Court order
Posted from nbcnews.com
Voting
Elections
Republicans
Supreme Court
Posted 10 mo ago
Responses: 5
13
13
0
As the far-left RPers keep saying, the Supreme Court is nothing but an illegitimate activist court! What? You mean the decision went to the left? Ahem ... The Supreme Court made a correct and right decision.
PO3 Shayne Seibert, I have to disagree with the Supreme Court having to rethink it's ruling. According to the decision (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23837566-allen-v-milligan), they ruled upheld the District Court's ruling finding that it was correct and that the redistricting map did in fact violate the Voting Rights Act. They held in their opinion that "The Court recognizes that reapportionment remains primarily the duty and responsibility of the States, not the federal courts." but that it still must be within the guidelines of the Voting Rights Act.
In other words, the Republicans screwed the pooch and need to redo it.
I for one am not like the far-left zealots that shout to the Heavens that the Supreme Court is illegitimate/racist/crooked/unethical/etc. every time they don't make some activist ruling that aligns with the far-left. I expect them to judge each case according to the Constitutionality and not try to reimagine it according to some ideology or cultural view like they do.
However, the outrage warriors on the left are wrong that the court ordered them to "create two Black-majority districts or something close to it". What the District Court ordered is "either two majority-Black districts, or two districts in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice, or a combination of two such districts."
Does the proposed redistricting maps do that? Does that second district with 40% Black voters mean that they other 60% are Republicans and wouldn't vote for the Democrat candidate? Don't know but I'm sure it will be brought back up to the court and another decision will come from it. If they court doesn't like it, they'll probably order a special master to draw up a plan like courts have done in other gerrymandering cases (which the Democrats only get upset by when the Republicans do it, but not when they do it ... but the reverse it true as well. It's just that the Republicans aren't as blatantly hypocritical as the Democrats are).
"State Rep. Juandalynn Givan, a Democrat from Birmingham, expressed shock that GOP legislators “would blatantly flip off the United States Supreme Court” with the map in debate this week."
All the sheeple on the left are doing is mouthing to words their media and political masters put in their mouth. I'm shocked I say! Completely shocked!
PO3 Shayne Seibert, I have to disagree with the Supreme Court having to rethink it's ruling. According to the decision (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23837566-allen-v-milligan), they ruled upheld the District Court's ruling finding that it was correct and that the redistricting map did in fact violate the Voting Rights Act. They held in their opinion that "The Court recognizes that reapportionment remains primarily the duty and responsibility of the States, not the federal courts." but that it still must be within the guidelines of the Voting Rights Act.
In other words, the Republicans screwed the pooch and need to redo it.
I for one am not like the far-left zealots that shout to the Heavens that the Supreme Court is illegitimate/racist/crooked/unethical/etc. every time they don't make some activist ruling that aligns with the far-left. I expect them to judge each case according to the Constitutionality and not try to reimagine it according to some ideology or cultural view like they do.
However, the outrage warriors on the left are wrong that the court ordered them to "create two Black-majority districts or something close to it". What the District Court ordered is "either two majority-Black districts, or two districts in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice, or a combination of two such districts."
Does the proposed redistricting maps do that? Does that second district with 40% Black voters mean that they other 60% are Republicans and wouldn't vote for the Democrat candidate? Don't know but I'm sure it will be brought back up to the court and another decision will come from it. If they court doesn't like it, they'll probably order a special master to draw up a plan like courts have done in other gerrymandering cases (which the Democrats only get upset by when the Republicans do it, but not when they do it ... but the reverse it true as well. It's just that the Republicans aren't as blatantly hypocritical as the Democrats are).
"State Rep. Juandalynn Givan, a Democrat from Birmingham, expressed shock that GOP legislators “would blatantly flip off the United States Supreme Court” with the map in debate this week."
All the sheeple on the left are doing is mouthing to words their media and political masters put in their mouth. I'm shocked I say! Completely shocked!
(13)
(0)
SPC Stiv ChenRobbins
Lots of folks go into auto-outrage any time they see "Republicans Bad"... the usual suspects screech about things without considering what actually happened, only taking their party's word for it without doing things like reading decisions for themselves. Thank you for making an actual reasoned, well-informed post.
(7)
(0)
10
10
0
I think the Supreme Court needs to rethink their ruling. States have always run elections, as it should be. Nationalizing the elections is exactly the wrong thing, as the powers that be are all about DEI right now. The states have election commissioners to set districts, it's not up to the federal government.
(10)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Buck Stops Here | Joe Biden For President
Join our campaign: http://www.joebiden.comFollow Joe!Joe’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/joebidenJoe’s Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/joebidenJoe’s Instag...
SFC John D. Democrats want big government socialism and Central planning which sounds like something from China and North Korea. If they centralize voting, you wouldn't be able to tell if there was fraud or not. We've already seen how corruption can stifle real Liberty when the FBI is weaponized as what we are seeing right now under the corrupt Biden Administration going after citizens that don't commit crime and ignoring crimes that are felonies on the books since 1951 such as those zombie Angry leftist protesters who protest in front of the homes of Supreme Court Justices and the Department of Justice tells the US Marshals to leave them alone but yet they'll arrest people who are praying in front of an abortion clinic and consider that to be a form of terrorism and intimidation when those leftist goons harassing and screaming all days of the night in front of a supreme court assertive Justice residence is considered okay and ignored by directive to the marshals to have a hands-off approach.
We are in a Twilight Zone right now under the President Biden administration the claims to have transparency when it's a bunch of lies.
You would think this commercial would be from The Babylon bee or from the onion parody newspaper but yet it's actually the Democratic party that is not transparent whatsoever.
https://youtu.be/ozzwMBvvUiA
SFC (Join to see) LTC Trent Klug SFC John D. SFC John D. PO3 Shayne Seibert SGT (Join to see) SPC Stiv ChenRobbins
Big government cronyism through the regulatory socialist state of President brokeback Biden.
We are in a Twilight Zone right now under the President Biden administration the claims to have transparency when it's a bunch of lies.
You would think this commercial would be from The Babylon bee or from the onion parody newspaper but yet it's actually the Democratic party that is not transparent whatsoever.
https://youtu.be/ozzwMBvvUiA
SFC (Join to see) LTC Trent Klug SFC John D. SFC John D. PO3 Shayne Seibert SGT (Join to see) SPC Stiv ChenRobbins
Big government cronyism through the regulatory socialist state of President brokeback Biden.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC John D. I think you should actually read the elections clause. You might also read the Article. The court case was over the Voting Rights Act and if you dont know it but Federal Law trumps State law.
(0)
(0)
SFC John D.
SGT (Join to see) - Not sure what you didn't understand.
Did you miss the second part? "As in this case, the results are subject to judicial review at the state level to ensure they are Constitutional (in this case the District Court held they violated the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court said they were correct in their interpretation)."
The above is pretty straightforward, but I did neglect to spell out the obvious - if a case is submitted to a federal court, it's because the plaintiff is claiming a violation of federal law used in the redistricting. In this case, the Voting Rights Act. I hope that is pretty clear to you now.
Maybe you just didn't read PO3 Shayne Seibert question or somehow interpreted it differently where he factually stated "States have always run elections, as it should be." and "The states have election commissioners to set districts, it's not up to the federal government." and you obviously thought he was wrong with your response of "Never had a civics class did you."
As any civics class will tell you, he is correct. I apologize for the educational system that has failed you, but it at least taught you the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution (amazing how many Democrat states didn't learn that in their civics classes).
Maybe you were confused in that the federal government does have the authority to stipulate the criteria the states use to draw districts (such as equal population, minority representation, an so on), but that doesn't mean the federal government has the authority to actually determine the boundary districts.
It IS possible that your civics class failed you again by not educating the student body that you not only have to look at the legal source (in this case, the Constitution), but also look at the court cases that have involved these sources and the opinions of the court rulings. I gave you a link to one source, but maybe it was confusing, so here's another for you - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-4/clause-1/congress-and-the-elections-clause. Glad to help in your civics education.
In the spirit of filling in the gaps about how the system works, here is a good reference that will show you how redistricting is accomplished in the different states - https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/who-draws-the-lines/.
Did you miss the second part? "As in this case, the results are subject to judicial review at the state level to ensure they are Constitutional (in this case the District Court held they violated the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court said they were correct in their interpretation)."
The above is pretty straightforward, but I did neglect to spell out the obvious - if a case is submitted to a federal court, it's because the plaintiff is claiming a violation of federal law used in the redistricting. In this case, the Voting Rights Act. I hope that is pretty clear to you now.
Maybe you just didn't read PO3 Shayne Seibert question or somehow interpreted it differently where he factually stated "States have always run elections, as it should be." and "The states have election commissioners to set districts, it's not up to the federal government." and you obviously thought he was wrong with your response of "Never had a civics class did you."
As any civics class will tell you, he is correct. I apologize for the educational system that has failed you, but it at least taught you the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution (amazing how many Democrat states didn't learn that in their civics classes).
Maybe you were confused in that the federal government does have the authority to stipulate the criteria the states use to draw districts (such as equal population, minority representation, an so on), but that doesn't mean the federal government has the authority to actually determine the boundary districts.
It IS possible that your civics class failed you again by not educating the student body that you not only have to look at the legal source (in this case, the Constitution), but also look at the court cases that have involved these sources and the opinions of the court rulings. I gave you a link to one source, but maybe it was confusing, so here's another for you - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-4/clause-1/congress-and-the-elections-clause. Glad to help in your civics education.
In the spirit of filling in the gaps about how the system works, here is a good reference that will show you how redistricting is accomplished in the different states - https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/who-draws-the-lines/.
(8)
(0)
10
10
0
Sounds like President Biden disobeying the order of the Supreme Court to not give tax breaks to people going for Masters and Doctorate Degrees.
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google