Reply With Quote
large demonstrations in Selma and Montgomery
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...-of-power.html
there's no Purcell principle if Republicans stand to gain by last minute redistricting
https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news...ing-2028-maps/
large demonstrations in Selma and Montgomery
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...-of-power.html
if the edge for Dems is +11 in November, it's pretty much armageddon for Rs
It was literally 1 Democrat in the House in Alabama for decades, the fact some woke leftist District judge forced the GOP to draw out one of their own on racist terms and create a 2nd out of thin air after 20+ years of tradition is ing ridiculous.
The GOP is simply returning the map to normalcy.
Jim Crow normalcy -- no representation for a third of the population of the state
two Trump-appointed judges on this panel
court extends the stay on the illegal racial gerrymander
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K2ZfobOClPyEWDtLELathLkD1eYNTCAD/view
We now face a critical decision on a very tight timeline. We can either allow
the Secretary of State to administer Alabama’s 2026 elections with a legislatively
enacted districting plan that we found (after a full trial) intentionally discriminated
against Black voters based on race in violation of the Cons ution, or we can issue
a preliminary injunction two and a half months ahead of Alabama’s scheduled
special primaries (and some five months before the general election), requiring the
Secretary to administer the 2026 elections with the race-blind plan that he used on
orders from us and the Supreme Court for Alabama’s 2024 elections and May 19,
2026, primary elections. We emphasize that because of the exceptional public
importance of this matter, we carefully reviewed the extensive evidentiary record in
these cases with fresh eyes in light of Callais.
After that exacting review, we conclude that a preliminary injunction must
issue. Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their
votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based
discrimination. And under the unusual cir stances of this case, we conclude that
a limited order requiring the Secretary to continue using this Court’s race-blind map
will not disrupt Alabama’s elections (all candidates ran under the race-blind map
until fifteen days ago, and all voters remain districted under the race-blind map in
electoral computer systems).
It's going to be hilarious (in the soul-crushing way) to see how fast Alabama goes to #SCOTUS for a stay of this ruling under Purcell, after obtaining relief from the Court from a similar injunction <checks notes> 15 days ago on the ground that it *wasn't* too close to the election.
still an illegal map under Callais according to the court
objection to porcine maquillage
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...ion-rcna346962The Republican-led South Carolina Senate on Tuesday voted against advancing a new congressional map, ending the redistricting effort in the state for now.
The failed vote was a surprise rejection of President Donald Trump, who had urged lawmakers to pass the redrawn map that eliminated the state’s single majority-Black district, represented by longtime Democratic Rep. James Clyburn.
further election-year partisan redistricting is potentially dummymandering
https://wherethingsstand.talkingpoin...south-carolina
“Neither my conscience nor common sense will allow me to stop an election that is already underway,” said SC Sen. Richard Cash (R).
Lol "conscience"
The Supreme Court will side with Alabama and let them restore the 2022 map. The lower court federal judges don't have the final say.
I still don't understand why Alabama doesn't just draw a 7-0 solid red map. Perfectly obtainable without any snake districts or cracking any big cities even. They have the numbers there to do it without a dummymander (all seats R+20 or better, unlike SC).
....... as for South Carolina, agree that drawing out Clyburn is a potential dummymander, I mean SC isn't a Trump + 30 or 40 state it's a Trump + 18 state and the east part of the state is definitely more blue with more black vote.
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 05-26-2026 at 11:15 PM.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...com-rcna346547Democrat Johnny Garcia has won his party’s primary in Texas’ 35th Congressional District, NBC News projects, defeating a rival whom party leaders had condemned for antisemitic comments as Democrats look to compete in a district Republicans redrew to their benefit...
Sleazy Trump sincluding $1 million in spending from an opaque outside group aimed at boosting Garcia’s opponent, sex therapist Maureen Galindo, despite the controversies dogging her. Punchbowl News reported that the super PAC, Lead Left PAC, had links to a GOP fundraising platform......
notably not full sicko mode, 5-1
https://www.nola.com/news/politics/l...be1e502dc.html
1 of 2 majority black districts eliminated
a 50% reduction in minority representation is the moderate Republican position here
SCOTUS upholds Alabama's racially discriminatory, never hitherto enacted electoral map in a per curiam (unsigned) decision
If you're African American and living in the USA in the 21st century, your vote no longer counts unless you vote for a Republican
Additionally, it is per se racist (uncons utional) to try to fix racist gerrymanders but racist gerrymanders themselves are agreeable to law if they cloak their racism with facially neutral language.
Decision at: https://electionlawblog.org/wp-conte...1314-order.pdf
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=156541To understand where we are: in April, the Court decided Louisiana v. Callais, a case in which the Supreme Court essentially struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act while cowardly pretending it was not doing so to try to avoid political heat. Section 2 has been the main driver in assuring that minority voters have a fair chance to elect their candidates of choice under conditions, like in Alabama, where the white majority usually votes to defeat the choice of Black voters.
Section 2, at least until Callais, was understood to be based solely on results or effects; proof of discriminatory intent was unnecessary.
But there is another path to trying to block a map that dilutes the voting power of minority voters: a claim of uncons utional intent in violation of the Cons ution’s equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Such claims are really hard to win, because proving racially discriminatory intent these days is difficult.
And yet, both before and after Callais, the court in Alabama found that the state intentionally discriminated against minority voters in not drawing a second district where Black voters could elect their candidates of their choice.
In today’s order, the Supreme Court makes the already difficult path of proving discriminatory intent even harder. Building upon Justice Alito’s earlier opinion in Abbott v. Perez and in other cases, there’s now practically an unrebuttable presumption that a legislature is acting in good faith and therefore is not acting in a racially discriminatory way so long as the state can assert some pretextual nonracial reason for enacting its plan. Here is the relevant paragraph:Even if plaintiffs get past this new discriminatory intent barrier, the Court has now imported the Callais discriminatory effects test into a cons utional vote dilution analysis. So in these cases, plaintiffs will need to meet an impossible standard to prove effect, just as in a post-Callais Section 2 case, a standard which simply ignores the fact that when (white) Republicans discriminate against Democrats in the south, they are discriminating against Black voters.
At this preliminary stage, the State has shown that it isen led to interim relief from the District Court’s injunction. See Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 607 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2025) (slip op., at 1–2). The State is likely to succeed on the merits as to both claims. As to intentional vote dilution, the District Court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith, see Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024), because it interpreted the State’s legal disagreement with the court’s earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus. Cf. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. 579, 608–609 (2018). And, as to both claims, the District Court’s analysis departed from Callais. Under Callais, the District Court was required to deny relief unless the plaintiffs’ alternative map performed “just as well” with respect to all of the State’s cons utionally permissible districting criteria. 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 29). Yet, the District Court found a violation even though the plaintiffs’ alternative map would not perform just as well as to the State’s cons utionally permissible criteria of keeping together the GulfCoast community of interest and avoiding the pairing of in bents. The District Court also failed to follow our instruction in Callais that the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 30).
Finally, the opinion turns the equities on its head in many ways. The Court now says that a federal court cannot remedy a voting violation at the last minute under the so-called Purcell Principle, but states should go to town with new, uncons utional plans: “While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, ibid., States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.” This is a license for putting last minute uncons utional plans in place and sow chaos for election administrators and voters.
As Justice Sotomayor shows, the Supreme Court erred in so many ways. It did not review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. It did not recognize that the lower court applied the presumption of good faith but had ample evidence that Alabama acted in bad faith by flouting the ruling of the district court in the hopes (fulfilled here) that the Supreme Court would see things differently. It allows changes at the last minute after Alabama had represented to the Court earlier in the litigation that it would need months to make the kinds of changes that election administrators will have to make in days.
More and more, this Court shows itself to be little more than a partisan tool engaged in results-oriented jurisprudence, despite protestations to the contrary.
netting out, Alabama keeps one of two districts with AA representation intact
not full sicko, but a 50% reduction is harsh
Wasserman-Scultz bigfoots Florida's majority black 20th district, falsely claims the Congressional Black Caucus and Speaker Jeffries encouraged her to
https://prospect.org/2026/06/05/debb...a-house-races/In an interview with a local CBS affiliate, Wasserman Schultz claimed the Congressional Black Caucus had encouraged her to jump in the race. CBC chair Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) disputed this characterization: “We had a conversation. Encouragement was not part of that conversation,” she told CNN.
Wasserman Schultz had specifically name-dropped House Democratic Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) as someone who had expressed support for the move because she was a member of his leadership team. “Leader Jeffries trusts Democrats to be able to know our communities well enough to have reached out and done the important outreach necessary to be able to make the decisions,” Wasserman Schultz went on. But this week, Jeffries said he hadn’t “made a decision as it relates to that particular race,” adding that “I think we all recognize the sensitivities of the moment in terms of an unprecedented Jim Crow–like assault on Black political representation.”
doesn't look colorblind
Georgia Republicans, feeling the political flames, decline to redistrict this year
https://apnews.com/article/redistric...be183a9d850ec5Kemp had not asked his fellow Republicans to reopen Georgia districts ahead of November. Instead, he wanted them to redraw congressional boundaries for the 2028 election. But the governor, in the final months of his second term, also called on lawmakers to redraw their own districts — a move that would have made Georgia the first state to apply the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision to its legislature.
State House Speaker Jon Burns sent Kemp a letter hours before Wednesday’s special session was set to begin, informing him that legislators would not consider redistricting at all during the session.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
