Indeed, although the Supreme Court sent this “racial gerrymandering” case back for a wide and broad rehearing before a three-judge court, Alabama will be free to junk its plan and start over with one that may achieve the same political ends and keep it out of legal trouble. But Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent sees the majority as issuing “a sweeping holding that will have profound implications for the constitutional ideal of one person, one vote, for the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and for the primacy of the State in managing its own elections.” Time will tell if Justice Scalia’s warning against the implications of what he termed a “fantastical” majority opinion is more than typical Scalian hyperbole....ADDED: Here's the PDF of the opinion, which I can't read just yet.
२५ मार्च, २०१५
"It is easy to read the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama as a mostly inconsequential case..."
"... giving a small, and perhaps only temporary, victory for minority voters in a dispute over the redrawing of Alabama’s legislative districts after the 2010 census," writes Richard Hasen at SCOTUSblog.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
cheaters gotta cheat...
machine said...
cheaters gotta cheat..
Enough about Al Franken.
What are your thoughts about this case?
It sounds like they may be opposed to democratic assessments through DRRAT policies (Displacement, Replacement, [over]-Regulation, Abortion, Taxation) policies...
No. They are opposed to assessments through soft partitions. DRRAT is still the preferred Democrat policy to marginalize and neutralize the rights and influence of the native population.
"Typical Scalian hyperbole."
If we have the read the dissent to see how far-reaching the decision is, it would seem the the dissent is augmenting the decision of the Court.
Typical Scalian hyperbole.
In other words, twenty years from now liberals will be quoting Scalia's warnings, saying that of course that's what the majority meant all along? That kind of Scalian hyperbole?
bu but what about Al Franken??????
"ADDED: Here's the PDF of the opinion, which I can't read just yet."
Remedial English or remedial Latin?
Damn, I knew it would happen eventually. The "majority-minority district" thing is officially in conflict with the interests of the Democratic Party.
On the one side are black legislators; on the other, Democratic legislators, some but not all of them black. The deal is that there are to be "majority-minority" districts in AL, and their number is not to fall, nor is "the ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice" to be "substantially diminished" by redistricting. An amendment to the relevant law, in 2006, basically says that each redistricting should keep black percentages in majority-minority districts as they were last time, to the extent possible.
So AL makes its new map, and manages both to keep black percentages in m-m districts what they were, to a few tenths of a percentage point, and also to make all the districts of equal size, ditto. Impressed? Don't be, because the plaintiffs argue that there are too many blacks in those districts now; they should be spread out, diluted among the surrounding white districts, so that they can affect more races.
I don't understand how AL can be accused of "racial gerrymandering" when the law explicitly demands it take cognizance of race. But the bigger problem is what in hell AL is to do now. What's best for the blacks? That they concentrate, and so elect "the candidate of their choice" (presumably black; at least, I can see any exception being used as evidence that the plan isn't working)? That they spread out, and become a sizable bloc in several different districts, one that can't be ignored?
Who knows? It's like the Electoral College. Are you better off in a swing state or a solid Red or Blue one? In a small state like NH where there are few electoral votes, but your own vote might actually matter, or in a big state like NY or CA, where the electoral votes are large, but your own contribution approaches zero?
Almost all of the Democratic Representatives left, and Democratic State legislators, are in Gerrymandered, safe districts. That is one of the reasons why their bench is so depleted, and their prospects in 2016 so bleak.
"Who knows? It's like the Electoral College. Are you better off in a swing state or a solid Red or Blue one? In a small state like NH where there are few electoral votes, but your own vote might actually matter, or in a big state like NY or CA, where the electoral votes are large, but your own contribution approaches zero?"
There should be ways to measure that--where do candidates and parties put in most of their time and effort? Which voters get pandered to the most?
I'd venture that blacks are in the worst position, because they have one party that takes for granted that they'll always have their votes, and the other that takes for granted that it'll never get their votes, and a generally low turnout and low donor base so it doesn't pay much to appeal to them. Sure, they have some districts locked up, either due to residential patterns (in big cities) or gerrymandering (in the South). But even their representatives don't amount to much--the Dems know those votes will be party line, and the abandonment of seniority for committee seats means having longtime safe seats doesn't even do as much good as it used to.
"Almost all of the Democratic Representatives left, and Democratic State legislators, are in Gerrymandered, safe districts. That is one of the reasons why their bench is so depleted, and their prospects in 2016 so bleak."
I think a lot of that also has to do with the Clintons tamping down the competition--we're not getting any buzz about potential candidates (Senators Booker, Gillibrand, Warren, Warner, or Governors Cuomo, Hickenlooper, or even Joe Biden--if Clinton were out, we'd be hearing about them). For the GOPs part, the lack of a dominant front runner has opened up their field. Normally, the GOP nod goes to the last runner up (Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush), but Santorum I think just never got taken seriously enough for that.
This also buttresses my age-old point--how much easier it is to simply not judge others based on their race! The obsession with race just creates more pitfalls.
"Enough about Al Franken.
What are your thoughts about this case?"
Bingo !
garage mahal: "bu but what about Al Franken??????"
In reference to machines' comment, it was about the cheating.
Wow. You really did "top out" in middle school didn't you?
It's another good example of how our insane voting rights law essentially says to states, "damned if you do, damned if you don't, how do you plead?" The court demands districts of precisely-equal numbers and the VRA demands that no change "diminish[] the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color … to elect their preferred candidates," 52 U.S.C. § 10304(b). Weirdly, Alabama interpreted this to mean that it had to draw districts of numeric equality which didn't diminish the percentage of blacks in existing majority-minority districts. With many of its majority-minority districts underpopulated, this placed Alabama in an impossible situation: In order to comply with the demands of voting rights law, it had to draw boundaries that moved more blacks into those districts, but doing so would inevitably expose it to a dilution claim. today, we find out that they chose wrong. Not, mind you, that they would have chosen right had they made the other choice—no, no. They lose this case because between a rock and a hard place, their compromise failed to thread the needle. It's an impossible, standardless business and we should get federal law out of it. Rapidly.
So it is racially discriminatory to act to preserve majority-minority districts as required by the Voting Rights Act, but it is also racially discriminatory to fail to preserve those same majority-minority districts.
Congratulations, America -- EVERYTHING is now officially racist!
Like our genial hostess, I too haven't had time to read the Court's opinions. Unlike Althouse, I won't let that fact inhibit me from commenting -- at least about the general issue of partisan districting.
Losers ALWAYS complain that the districts are unfair. And when the pendulum swings, the new set of losers ALWAYS complain that the NEW districts are unfair.
E.g.: Here in NC, Republican candidates for Congress did very well in the 2014 elections; they won 10 of 13 seats. The local organ of the Democratic Party -- the Raleigh News & Observer -- complained that the Republicans won more seats than their votes entitled them to, because the GOP-controlled legislature had gerrymandered the Congressional districts. But if you added up the votes (as I did), you found that Republican Congressional candidates won 56% of the vote. Was 10 seats too many for such a blow-out? Four years before, when the districting put into effect by a Democrat-controlled State government was in effect, Republican candidates for Congress got almost the same percentage of the vote (54%), but won only 6 of 13 seats.
My personal opinion is that majority-minority districts are bad for Blacks, because (a) the Democrats can count on their votes, and (b) such districts discourage the development of Black politicians who can appeal to a broader electorate. But the Law, in its wisdom, may require such districts, and the law is the law, even if it is an ass.
""It is easy to read the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama as a mostly inconsequential case...""
Well, duh. From now on, if you look up "inconsequential" in any dictionary, you'll see a picture of this case.
Does this mean there now is going to have to be a wholesale redistricting across the country to eliminate the previously gerrymandered "majority-minority" districts?
The black caucuses are going to scream their heads off! You can't do that! It's ra-a-acist!!!
I think what Justice Scalia means about the threat to one-man one-vote, is that since you can't keep the shrinking population M-M district M-M by raking in more minority voters from neighboring districts, then the only way to maintain the M-M status is to require them to be allowed to shrink in population. A possible result could eventually be a 250,000 member M-M district next to a 750,000 non M-M district.
Beach Brutus said...
"A possible result could eventually be a 250,000 member M-M district next to a 750,000 non M-M district."
But they can't do that, lest they face litigation predicated on the Wesberry-Karcher line of cases, which require districts to have as close to mathematical parity as practicality allows. So they're screwed no matter what they do--including if they do nothing at all. It's insanity.
Godfather,
The general pattern, all across the country, is for a few districts to be very heavily Democratic (cities, mostly) and many more to be very slightly Republican (everywhere else). As a result, it's possible for the total, country-wide House vote to be for Democrats, yet have a Republican majority in the House.
The Democrats do not understand this, and every time it happens there are accusations of gerrymandering. If they could just be made to understand that their preference for living cheek-by-jowl with other people who pretty much think the same way they do has political consequences ...
Alabama really can't win in this case. It boils down to the (traditional) lawsuit where one party (Democrats this time) see a chance to improve their chances if they contest redistricting.
In this suit they need not argue traditional gerrymandering. Race is now the excuse to try to change the composition of the legislature. Even after being cleared by the Justice Department and (if my quick read of the opinion and dissent is correct) even using essentially an ACLU provided redistricting plan, the fact that Alabama is in the South means that race is the ideal means to improve the position of Democrats in the legislature.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा