Court blocks Louisiana's congressional map with a second majority-Black district (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago

Pretty sure this will end up like the similar Alabama case in 2022. "Sure it illegally disenfranchises voters, but it would be unfair to fix it so close to an election. Go ahead and rig this election, but promise to change (not fix, just change) it after the election."

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It seems like we are always to close to an election if the change being discussed would be positive.

Never too close to jam a conservative justice onto the Supreme Court though. Or trash part of the government on the way out.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Someone should do something

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Gotta love the coding here.

R's: Can we be say... THIS racist in our districting?

Court: For the second time no.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago

I feel like the article didn't give me enough information. I think Louisiana was the state that got slapped down by a court for something or other racially discriminating in the past, but I didn't see mention of that so maybe it was another southern racist shithole like Alabama? Anyway, I guess this'll likely come round in a future news cycle. Maybe I'll learn more about it from an article then.

[-] Ranvier@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes that's what happened. One court slapped it down for unfairly reducing minority representation in violation of the voting rights act, so this map was drawn to increase minority representation. Now these two judges struck down the new map saying basically "I think it should be unconstitutional to consider race at all when drawing districts, even if it's to make sure they aren't being unfairly diluted, voting rights act is unconstitutional." It's supreme court bait to try and get them to strike down more of the voting rights act with their same reasoning they used to strike down affirmative action policies. If the supreme court decides to take this up eventually, I'd say the voting rights act days are numbered unfortunately with this court.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

Thanks for clarifying. I'd say we're about fucked.

this post was submitted on 01 May 2024

84 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30954 readers

3538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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