Posted on Sep 27, 2023
Supreme Court rejects Alabama's defiance in voting case
223
3
3
2
2
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/ [login to see] /supreme-court-alabama-voting-case
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block enforcement of an Alabama voting rights decision that the high court issued just months ago.
In June, the court ruled that Alabama's Republican-drawn congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act because, in a state with seven congressional districts and a 27% Black population, the GOP-dominated legislature had created just one congressional district in which Black voters are either a majority or close to it.
The court's 5-to-4 decision upheld a unanimous decision by a three-judge lower court panel that included two Trump appointees; the lower court had required the creation of a second majority Black congressional district, and the Supreme Court agreed. But when the case was returned to the state legislature with orders to create a second majority Black district, the GOP lawmakers didn't do that. Instead they upped the number of Black voters from 30% to 40% in one of the districts.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block enforcement of an Alabama voting rights decision that the high court issued just months ago.
In June, the court ruled that Alabama's Republican-drawn congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act because, in a state with seven congressional districts and a 27% Black population, the GOP-dominated legislature had created just one congressional district in which Black voters are either a majority or close to it.
The court's 5-to-4 decision upheld a unanimous decision by a three-judge lower court panel that included two Trump appointees; the lower court had required the creation of a second majority Black congressional district, and the Supreme Court agreed. But when the case was returned to the state legislature with orders to create a second majority Black district, the GOP lawmakers didn't do that. Instead they upped the number of Black voters from 30% to 40% in one of the districts.
Supreme Court rejects Alabama's defiance in voting case
Posted from npr.org
Supreme Court
Voting
Elections
Republicans
Posted 7 mo ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
The so-called Trump l i c a n s are not going to threaten the Supreme Court and they're not going to protest in front they're not going to save 'you have unleash the world wind'.
The court has made his decision and we're not going to be like sore leftist losers and riot.
Isn't interesting that the Attorney General protects the left who screams at Supreme Court Justices? That's in violation of a 1950 statute on intimidating Witnesses and judges but the doj has been directed and so has the Marshalls to let the lefties do what they want. But if it's Christians praying in front of an abortion clinic, they get arrested.
So much for equity in a Judicial System!
The court has made his decision and we're not going to be like sore leftist losers and riot.
Isn't interesting that the Attorney General protects the left who screams at Supreme Court Justices? That's in violation of a 1950 statute on intimidating Witnesses and judges but the doj has been directed and so has the Marshalls to let the lefties do what they want. But if it's Christians praying in front of an abortion clinic, they get arrested.
So much for equity in a Judicial System!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."The court's 5-to-4 decision upheld a unanimous decision by a three-judge lower court panel that included two Trump appointees; the lower court had required the creation of a second majority Black congressional district, and the Supreme Court agreed. But when the case was returned to the state legislature with orders to create a second majority Black district, the GOP lawmakers didn't do that. Instead they upped the number of Black voters from 30% to 40% in one of the districts.
That prompted a sharp rebuke from the lower court. Faced with what it viewed as delaying tactics and deliberate defiance of a Supreme Court decision, the lower court appointed a special master to draw a new congressional map with two majority Black districts. To emphasize its displeasure with the state, the three-judge panel refused to put its order on hold, noting that Alabama had already conducted one congressional election in 2022 with an "unlawful map."
The state, however, appealed to the Supreme Court a second time in an effort to postpone the creation of a new map. The state argued that it should be allowed time for a new legal line of attack.
On Tuesday, however, the justices refused to delay the lower court's drawing of a new map with two majority, or near-majority, Black districts. In an unsigned order, the court said: "The application for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied."
No rationale was presented and there were no noted dissents."...
..."The court's 5-to-4 decision upheld a unanimous decision by a three-judge lower court panel that included two Trump appointees; the lower court had required the creation of a second majority Black congressional district, and the Supreme Court agreed. But when the case was returned to the state legislature with orders to create a second majority Black district, the GOP lawmakers didn't do that. Instead they upped the number of Black voters from 30% to 40% in one of the districts.
That prompted a sharp rebuke from the lower court. Faced with what it viewed as delaying tactics and deliberate defiance of a Supreme Court decision, the lower court appointed a special master to draw a new congressional map with two majority Black districts. To emphasize its displeasure with the state, the three-judge panel refused to put its order on hold, noting that Alabama had already conducted one congressional election in 2022 with an "unlawful map."
The state, however, appealed to the Supreme Court a second time in an effort to postpone the creation of a new map. The state argued that it should be allowed time for a new legal line of attack.
On Tuesday, however, the justices refused to delay the lower court's drawing of a new map with two majority, or near-majority, Black districts. In an unsigned order, the court said: "The application for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied."
No rationale was presented and there were no noted dissents."...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have a hard time understanding why district lines have to be racial in nature. Is it because the liberals have parked the blacks in an area for the express purpose of electing a black person? We are all Americans, and the sooner the left figures that simple fact out, the better we will all be. You divide districts along population lines, not skin color.
It just shows me how racist the Democrat part has always been, even with all their virtue signaling. It's weak and pathetic. Treat people as people FFS.
It just shows me how racist the Democrat part has always been, even with all their virtue signaling. It's weak and pathetic. Treat people as people FFS.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google