March 25, 2015
By Krishnadeve Calamur
The U.S. Supreme Court called a district court ruling that upheld Alabama's redistricting plan, which overloaded some districts with black Democrats, "legally erroneous." In a 5-to-4 ruling, the justices rejected the ruling and sent it back to the lower court....
...According to The Associated Press, (click here) Justice Breyer said the lower court "should have reviewed claims of racial gerrymandering on a district-by-district level, not just statewide. He also said the court didn't apply the right test when it found that race wasn't the primary motivating factor."...
Legally erronious means not according to established law. In other words in this case Alabama was under a statute that provided for the organizing of districts and in this case it was not followed. The Supreme Court returned it to the lower courts since it was a matter of enforcing the existing law.
This article was before the hearing took place on the Voting Rights Act. It gives the opportunity to understand the dynamics on Alabama.
Case in point: Alabama, (click here) a state rife with ironic political twists and a history of overt attempts to suppress the black vote.
In 2000, Democrats controlled the state Legislature, and the redistricting process. They used their power to create districts with black majorities under the Voting Rights Act, while at the same time putting enough reliably Democratic black voters into majority white districts so that white Democratic candidates could build black-white coalitions and have a chance of winning....
...By 2010, Republicans controlled the Legislature...the black majority increased to over 70 percent. At the same time, the majority white districts got whiter, and more safely Republican.
The redistricting came after the 2010 Census showed population shifts that made some existing districts way too big in population terms, and others too small. The Republicans tried to equalize the size of the districts. They also tried to maintain the same number of majority-black districts, but now contend that under the Voting Rights Act, a simple majority of black voters in those districts was not enough.
"The state cannot diminish the ability of black voters to elect their candidate of choice, for example, by making a district that was 65 percent black into a district that is 51 percent black," says Alabama Solicitor General Andrew Brasher, who is defending the law at the Supreme Court on Wednesday....
Alabama took the change in demographics to completely distort the racial character of a district.
By Krishnadeve Calamur
The U.S. Supreme Court called a district court ruling that upheld Alabama's redistricting plan, which overloaded some districts with black Democrats, "legally erroneous." In a 5-to-4 ruling, the justices rejected the ruling and sent it back to the lower court....
...According to The Associated Press, (click here) Justice Breyer said the lower court "should have reviewed claims of racial gerrymandering on a district-by-district level, not just statewide. He also said the court didn't apply the right test when it found that race wasn't the primary motivating factor."...
Legally erronious means not according to established law. In other words in this case Alabama was under a statute that provided for the organizing of districts and in this case it was not followed. The Supreme Court returned it to the lower courts since it was a matter of enforcing the existing law.
This article was before the hearing took place on the Voting Rights Act. It gives the opportunity to understand the dynamics on Alabama.
Case in point: Alabama, (click here) a state rife with ironic political twists and a history of overt attempts to suppress the black vote.
In 2000, Democrats controlled the state Legislature, and the redistricting process. They used their power to create districts with black majorities under the Voting Rights Act, while at the same time putting enough reliably Democratic black voters into majority white districts so that white Democratic candidates could build black-white coalitions and have a chance of winning....
...By 2010, Republicans controlled the Legislature...the black majority increased to over 70 percent. At the same time, the majority white districts got whiter, and more safely Republican.
The redistricting came after the 2010 Census showed population shifts that made some existing districts way too big in population terms, and others too small. The Republicans tried to equalize the size of the districts. They also tried to maintain the same number of majority-black districts, but now contend that under the Voting Rights Act, a simple majority of black voters in those districts was not enough.
"The state cannot diminish the ability of black voters to elect their candidate of choice, for example, by making a district that was 65 percent black into a district that is 51 percent black," says Alabama Solicitor General Andrew Brasher, who is defending the law at the Supreme Court on Wednesday....
Alabama took the change in demographics to completely distort the racial character of a district.
