this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
245 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3191 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court’s decision siding with Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case gave Democrats and voting rights activist a surprising opportunity before the 2024 elections to have congressional maps redrawn in a handful of states.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hairyblue@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

Khadidah Stone, a plaintiff in the Alabama case, said the continuing opposition was “appalling” but “not surprising.” She noted that Alabama is where then-Gov. George Wallace blocked Black students from integrating the University of Alabama in 1963.

“There is a long history there of disobeying court orders to deny Black people our rights,” she said.

I grew up in Alabama and remember some people here being proud that Wallace was fighting for them (the whites)

Alabama's Republican Roy Moore also defied the the supreme court over same sex marriage and the 10 commandments monument.

Republicans don't believe in democracy.

[–] dan_linder@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Easy solution: All elections in the state after the supreme Court decision need to be invalid and on hold until the new redistricting is approved.

Don't get it done by the next election? Sorry, your ballots and electrics don't count.

It's disenfranchisement, but for everyone, not just the ones whose gerrymandering selected.

[–] Hairyblue@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

Letting the people who refuse to give up power, STAY in power is not a solution.

The president had to send in the national guard to enforce the ruling with the school decision with Gov. Wallace.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope!

Wisconsin GOP currently has a super majority because of these maps. They'd happily keep their seats until they die using your easy solution.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

No you see they would also have to lose their seats and the court appoints a board to set new maps and hold a new election. Everybody who participated in blocking compliance with the court decision is prohibited from candidacy or any other position as a gov official.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Nope. You hold every politician in the state of Alabama in contempt, issue warrants, arrest them then force them to meet and redraw the maps in jail till they meet the requirements of the court decision.

Sounds good at least.

[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why don’t we just use county lines for representation until maps are drawn. It’s predetermined and while counties do typically lean politically, they’re not developed around political lines. That way we don’t halt all progress until a map is redrawn. Delaying the redrawing is a strategy on its own so take away the benefits of delay

[–] qantravon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Districts need to have equal population, counties don't have that quality and thus won't work.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s decision siding with Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case gave Democrats and voting rights activists a surprising opportunity before the 2024 elections.

New congressional maps would have to include more districts in Alabama and potentially other states where Black voters would have a better chance of electing someone of their choice, a decision widely seen as benefiting Democrats.

Lawsuits over racially gerrymandered congressional maps in several other states, including Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, quickly followed the Supreme Court’s landmark Voting Rights Act decision in June.

Republicans want to keep their map in place as the state continues to fight the lower court ruling ordering them to create a second district where Black voters constitute a majority or close to it.

But her initial order blocking the 2022 congressional map drawn by Louisiana’s GOP-controlled Legislature -- which maintains white majorities in five of six districts in a state where about one-third of voters are Black — remains on appeal.

The high court’s decision in the Alabama case “did not present a free pass to future plaintiffs to establish (Voting Rights Act) liability without proving that the relevant minority population is itself compact,” Louisiana said in its argument.


The original article contains 1,259 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] dan_linder@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[–] Cheems@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just get rid of the electoral college. One person one vote.

[–] rvd2k4@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That helps with the Presidential elections, there is still the House and local assembly. I live in Wi and hope that we can start having fair maps for our assembly. 40% of the vote shouldn’t result in 60%+ of the seats.

Edit: I do agree that 1 person 1 vote should be the norm, we just have other issues to worry about with gerrymandering and civic engagement.